a
JA‘ofi
.i

4 .,..
. in NJ. .
”mix?

a;
5.5“.

’

i. .9
a”? .. dawn
habitaafiuu

991.1

5.:
a}.
37:}
. .

 

 

J? , 3.2.2.; A .1. 4.234.... ..
I... < r . . F v- .7 .. i I. ....\
a; . ..d.....‘... 1 o. :11... .Kr‘. W. .4... a .

y. r y w v . .f I , ‘

‘

 

 

    

W .LII'Jan I
3 Michigan State

9001 e University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

The Effect of Packaging Attributes on Consumer Perception of
Cherry Juice

presented by

Audrey Michael Whaling

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Packaging
Science

 

 

lei/W M3;

V7 Major Professor’s‘flgnature
23 / a /07

Date

 

MSU Is an Affirmative ActiorVEquel Opportunity Institution

 

'---.--n--n--o—u----~-o----------n-o-.-o-o----I-o-u-‘-u--o-o—-----—n-o-o-n-nun--------.-.--------o-u-0-

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

NOWVS $00ng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/C|RC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

The Effect of Packaging Attributes on Consumer Perception of Cherry Juice

By

Audrey Michael Whaling

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Packaging

2007

Abstract
The Effect of Packaging Attributes on Consumer Perception of Cheny Juice
By
Audrey Michael Whaling

Consumer views of a product are based on many characteristies of both the
product and the package. The means-end theory suggests that consumers make
decisions to buy according to what choice will produce the most beneficial results. In
essence, a consumer will weigh the consequences of several altematives and choose the
most positive outcome for themselves.

Products communicate to consumers through attributes. Packaging, a commme
overlooked aspect of a product, plays a vital role in sending messages regarding product
athibutes to the consumer. Material, shape, and package design can help to project a
positive and beneficial image of the product in the consumer's mind, which can translate
into fulfillment of perceived nwds.

The objective of this research project is to investigate the impact of packaging on
consumer perception of cheny juice. Research was conducted through a series of focus
groups grounded in the means-end theory, using three demographic groups; mothers,
young adults and adults.

Research findings indicate attributes associated with the communiwtion and utility
functions of packaging have the most impact on consumers in all focus groups.
Packaging attlibutes like transparency, inertness, usability, recloseability, and recyclability
affected consumer perceptions about the product. Difl’erences arose between
demographic groups only in the context of the situation for which the package was being

used.

Copyright by
AUDREY MICHAEL WHALING

For Dr. Laura Bix,
my mentor, my inspiration,
and my guiding light

iv

Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to sinceme thank my major professor Dr.

Laura Bix. She has been my mentor and motivator throughout this entire process. She
took me under her wing when l was only a sophomore in college and has seen me
through until the end. Her dedication, compassion, wisdom, and relentless efforts have
kept me going. laspiretoonedaybe like her.

I would also like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Diana Twede, Dr.
Suzanne Thomsbury, and Dr. Nora Rtfon. Their help and support have been vital to this
research.

lwould liketoexpressmyexu'emegratitudetotheJuiceProductsAssociation
the Michigan State University School of Packaging, and the Michigan State Graduate
School for funding this research. I also thank MSU Packaging Alumni Association for the
scholarship awarded during my program. Thank you to St. Gobaln, Elo-Pack, CCL
containers, and Performance Packaging, the companies who provided support of this
project.

I extend a thank you to the Liz Quilliam for her help during the focus groups and
to Lori Strom for her help in recruiting participants. Without their help this research
would have been impossible. In addition, a big thank you to Dr. Kami Silk for taking the
time to work on data analysis with me. I would also like to extend my appreciation for
Linda Estill, Colleen Wager, and April Meersdom for doing the behind the scenes work.

A special thank you to Maria Fez-Gonzales, Javier de la Fuente, Josh Vincent,
andJoeFair,whohavesupportedmethrough myentire program. Thetimeand help
they have volunteered has been monumental. And a HUGE thank you, Kristi Radakovic
and Jessie Oniga for always being there when I needed them.

I would also like to thank to my famity, who were always there to answer
hysterimlphonecallsatall hours, bringwineandchocolatewhenneeded, providing

enthusiasm, and having endless faith in me. I owe you immensely.

Table of Contents

 

List of tables

Listoffigures

 

Chapter 1: Introduction

 

I. The Means End Chain

 

II. Product Attributes

 

Ill. Packaging Functions as Product Attributes

 

i. Containment

 

ii. Protection

 

iii. Communication

 

iv. Utility

 

IV. The Michigan Cherry Industry

 

 

Chapter 2: Literature Review
I. Influence of Attributes

 

 

Chapter3: Research Methods
I. Objectives

 

ll. Methods

 

i. Focus Groups

 

 

ii. Composition of Focus Groups
III. Materials

 

i. Glass Bottles

 

ii. Gable Top Cartons

 

iii. Polyethylene teraphthalate (PET) bottles

 

iv. Tetra brick (brick packs)

 

v. Aluminum bottles

 

vi. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Bottles
vii. Flexible Stand Up pouches

 

 

 

viii. POM Wonderful® packages
IV. Procedures

 

Chapter 4: Methods for Analyses

 

l. Analysis of Package Rankings

 

vi

ix

CDCDGDNN-F-l

II. Thought Unit Analysis

iv.

V.

vi.
Ill. Long table Approach
Chapter 5: Results

 

Containment

 

Protection

 

Communication

 

Utility

 

 

Other
Means End Chain

 

 

 

Package Rank Order

 

l. Glass Bottles

 

ii. Flexible Stand Up Pouches

 

iii. Gable Top Cartons

 

iv. Tetra brick (biick packs)

 

v. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Bottles

 

vi. Aluminum Bottles

 

vii. Polyethylene Terephthalate Bottle

 

Packaging Rank Order by Demographic Group .......................

Results of Coding

 

i. Containment

 

ii. Protection

 

a. Transparency, Size, etc.

 

 

b. Labeling
iv. Utility

 

a. Use

 

b. Storage

 

v. Other

 

Focus group Discussion Findings

 

i. Containment

 

ii. Protection

 

iii. Communication

 

a. Transparency, Shape, and other features ................... .

888888882E9883388$$fi388

 

b. Labeling
1. Labeling in general

 

 

2. Labeling for cherry juice
iv. Utility

 

vii

39
41
41
42

83:3

\IVNNO)
economic

a. Use of the Product 74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. Storage 75

c. End use 75

V. Means End Chain For Cherry Juice .. 77

Chapter 6: Discussion . 31

Chapter 7: Conclusions 37

Chapter 8: Research Limitations 91

Chapter 9: Future research 94

Appendix A: Screening Questionnaire 97

Appendix B: IRB Approval Letter and IRB Approved Moderator Guide .. 99
Appendix C: Consent Forms 104
Appendix D: Demographic Survey and Results .. 111
Appendix E: Calculation of Intercoder Reliability . 116
Appendix F: Focus Group Findings . 120
Appendix G: Diseases Associated with Aging _. 127

 

Appendix H: Recruitment Examples -- 130

 

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Antioxidant Content of Highest Containing foods

 

 

Table 2: Composition of Focus Groups

 

Table 3: Participants who had at best tried cherry juice

 

Table 4: Coding Sheet

Table 5: Rank order of packages as an initial part ofdiscussion..___...._.

Table 6: Rank order of packages as a discussion of cherry juice

 

packaging

Table7: Frequencyofbestlikedpackageaspartofinitial, general
| 509 I‘ .

 

Table 8: Frequency of best liked package after the discussion of juice
packaging, with a final emphasis on cherry juice

 

Table 9: Significant Shifts in Rankings as indicated by Cross-tabs, chi-

 

squared analysis using SPSS

Table 10: Frequency of best liked package as part of initial discussion

 

by demographic group

Table 11: Thought Unit Results

 

Table 12: Significant differences between demographic groups in
thought units as indicated by Cross-tabs, chi-squared

 

analysis using SPSS

ix

12

24

24

51

51

52

52

61

List of Figures

Figure 1: A model of Consumer Problem Solving

 

Figure 2: A visual mm of the Means-End Chain

 

Figure 3: An example of the Means End Chain for Milk

 

Figure 4: Evaluating the Albmatives- Product Perception

 

Figure 5: Glass Bottle

 

 

Figure 6: Gable Top Carton

Figure 7: Polyethylene Terephthalate Bottle

 

 

Figure 8: Tetra Brick (Brick Pack)

Figure 9: Aluminum Bottle

 

Figure 10: High Density Polyethylene Bottle

 

Figure 11: Flexible Stand Up Pouch

 

Figure 12: POM' Wonderful Package

 

 

Figure 13: General flow of discussion for focus groups

Figure 14: Procedure for the Long Table approach

 

 

Figure 15: Means and chain for cherry juice packaging

27

28

29

31

32

38

49

78

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Packaging protects and delivers products to consumers, in addition to
communicating information and facts about the product. Not only do labels and
name brands convey information to the consumer, but package type and material
can also play a role in sending a message about a product. As a product
attribute, the package has the ability to communicate consequences of purchase
and, ultimately, affect purchase intention. The message a package conveys can
indicate to a consumer whether or not a product/package system will help them
fulfill a goal or value they are attempting to achieve (Olson and Reynolds 2001).
The relationship of product (and package attributes) to the desired end states,
goals and values of a consumer is described through a model referred to as the

Means End Chain.
I. The Means End Chain

Consumer values are a key factor that drives consumer behavior. Peter
and Olson (2005) define values as, “people’s broad life goals,” which include their
“preferred states of being,” and “preferred modes of conduct.” The human race
consumes in order to meet needs, achieve goals or reach and states, at which
point they seek no further fulfillment. Every day millions are spent on products in
order for people to achieve these end states. A typical shopping trip (Figure 1)
includes: identification of a problem and the need for a solution, finding
alternative solutions to the problem, weighing of alternatives, selection of a

solution, and an evaluation of the choice after selection.

 

 
   
    

If unsure, seek
information from outside
sources- gather external
information (packaging is
one possible source)

c??? Q

Probletrn ——> Search for ——> Evaluation ——-> Selection —v POSt
recognl '0" Altematlve of alternative of purchase

solutions solutions a solution use and

 
   
     
 

EDD-)3-

Re-evaluation

. . . . . of alternative
Steps assoclated wrth a typlcel shopplng tnp

Figure 1: A model of Consumer Problem Solving

Peter and Olson (2005) define an attribute as a characteristic of a product.
Characteristics can be subjective, like quality or classiness; or they can be
physical, such as the material from which a product is made. Much of the time a
consumer evaluates the product by evaluating attributes of that product in order

to make a purchase decision. Each attribute is taken into account and weighed in

the context of a preferred end state. In this way product attributes can directly
influence the way one aims to achieve values.

One way of describing the relationship between values and product
attributes is the Means End Chain. Pieters et al. (1995) describes the Means End
Chain as, “relationships between product attributes, consequences of product
use, and consumer values.” According to the Means End Chain, consumers
make decisions based on 3 products attributes they believe will produce
outcomes (Gutman 1997). Consumers aim to maximize positive outcomes and
minimize negative ones. They weigh their options, comparing each alternative
and how it will affect them. They make a decision based on what choice will
produce the most positive outcome. Simply, it is a theory that describes a means
to an ends. Olson and Reynolds (2001) provide the following associations shown

in Figure 2:

 

 

 

 

Attributes Functional Psychosocial Values
:1) Consequences 12> Consequences ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: A visual description of the Means End Chain

A consumer begins with a problem that needs a solution (i.e. needing milk
while cooking dinner). A consumer must then evaluate several different solutions
for this problem and weigh the consequences of each. These consequences are
either functional or psychosocial consequences (Olson and Reynolds 2001) that
will result from a situation. Figure 3 shows the means and chain in action.
Functional consequences include the actual use for the product, for example

needing the milk to make macaroni and cheese for dinner. Psychosocial

consequences are those that have meaning to a consumer in regard to how they
feel and how they believe others see them. Psychosocial consequences, for
example could be the choice between Miole milk and fat free milk. Choosing fat
free milk may result in a person feeling healthier, and believing others see them
as healthy. After evaluating alternatives and weighing all consequences, a

consumer then makes the choice they see fit to best fulfill their goals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fat Free Fewer I feel healthy I am healthy
Milk :9 calories=less :29 and others see :5
weight gain me as healthy
Attribute Functional Psychosocial Value
Consequence Consequence

Figure 3: An Example of the Means End Chain for Milk

Product attributes evaluated by consumers consist of knowledge about the
product which includes brand attributes, brand image, brand personalities, and
perceptions of product (Krum and Culley 1983). How a consumer sees a product
can strongly influence their beliefs about that product, and, in turn, how they see
that product helping to achieve their values. Judgments and decisions about a
product are often made after considering the possible benefits and costs to the
consumer (Mukherjee and Hoyer 2001). A consumer who perceives a product to
be positive and beneficial is more likely to consume or use it.

Product perception can be broken down further. There are two
psychological responses 3 consumer experiences when exposed to stimuli
(products). These responses are affect and cognition (Figure 4). Affect is the
feeling a consumer has about a product. These feelings are most often a

reaction and experienced physically. A consumer often cannot control these

feelings, and they occur with almost any type of stimulus. For example, a
consumer may love the characters Snap, Crackle, and Pop of Kellogg’s“I Rice
Krispies cereal. This feeling is considered affect.

Cognition involves the mental processes, thoughts and ideas a consumer
has about a product. These processes include understanding, evaluating,
planning, deciding, and thinking (Anderson 1985), and enable consumers to
interpret information they receive from the environment as well as information
from their past experiences. They also allow a consumer to understand their own
behavior and beliefs. And finally, not only does cognition allow consumers to
interpret information, but use that information to make decisions and carry out
actions to achieve goals (Peter and Olson 2005).

These responses shape perception, and in turn perception is knowledge of
a product attributes. This knowledge ultimately creates a basis for consumers to
use in making decisions. If the responses to products, or other stimuli, can be
positively influenced, a consumer may see that product as an aid to achieve their
goals and values. This may translate into intention to purchase the product

(Peter and Olson 2005).

 

 

 

 

 

c2385.“. 8.60.5 -mo>=mEo=< 05 9.2355 6 9:9”.

 

_e>e_
.mcozoEe cm :0
ccEzmcoo 5:5

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

   
    

 

 

 

    
  

 

 

 

 

£858 Heaven.
cmcoamom
o>=oet<
cmmcocza memcoamm: guests.
2 Ho: was 05:68 :0
Lo amaze—a a: comma new: SEE: 8:00am *0
2 cognac. c£ mE=EE concourse
E on 6:36
9: moon 26... emcoamom
w>=Emoo
Samoa e5
5on 25965
message

.eEamcoo

 

Il. Product Attributes

In most situations a consumer has specific attributes they look for
when purchasing a product (Fennel 1978). These attributes can range from
the safety of using the product to convenience or consumer satisfaction with
the product. A consumer evaluates attributes different products offer and
decides which will maximize positive outcomes of the decision he or she
makes. Positive outcomes are those that solve the initial problem of the
consumer; those outcomes that fulfill a consumer’s requirements. A product
that meets and fulfills a consumer’s needs may then result in a positive
perception of the product.

However, consumer perspectives of products are based not just on a
single attribute, but many, so it is critical to identify all of those
characteristics that influence a consumer’s perception of a product (Kames
1995). Consumers buy with a list of requirements a product must fulfill, and
evaluate a product based on those expectations. The requirements they look
for in a product are those which will help them solve the initial problem that

began their search (Olson and Reynolds 2001).

III. Packaging Functions as Product Attributes

The package is a product attribute and a key factor in influencing
purchasing behavior (Jacoby and Olson 1972). If the consumer is focusing
on product attributes when shopping, the package is included in those
attributes. Thus, a package that sends a positive message to the consumer

translates into a positive message about the product. Colors, texture, shape,

and text all make an impression on the purchaser that can influence
behavior. Packaging is the first thing a consumer sees in the store and the
last interaction medium before purchase (Ampuero and Vila 2006). Sending
a clear message of beneficial attributes creates the idea that purchasing the
product will have minimal negative consequence and satisfy consumer
needs.

The package is not just a vehicle to move the product from
manufacturer to market place. According to Abbott (1989) the four main
functions of packaging are 1) containment, 2) protection 3) communication
and 4) utility. These four functions are present in packaging, regardless of
the type; and they can be further broken down to specific attributes of the
package.

i. Containment

Containing a product is thought to be the original function of packaging
(Abbott 1989). This includes the handling and use of the product. Imagine
what would happen if a person tried to deliver a gallon of milk to his or her
neighbor without the plastic jug. A package enables a product to be properly
transported from one location to another.

Attributes typically associated with this function are the durability and
machinability of the packaging material. It is also the design of the package
and its ability to move easily through the supply chain. It can also be the
package material and shape and its ability to keep the contents of the

product securely inside.

ii. Protection

Most products require a barrier from hazards of the outside
environment and a means to preserve product properties. Contamination,
alteration, and tampering are all things that may occur to a product, and it is
the packages’ duty to prevent this from occurring (Abbott 1989). Oxidation,
photo degradation, and changes that result from temperature fluctuations
may be detrimental to the product’s properties. The package must protect
the product and retain its quality until the end of its stated shelf life. As a
result, the shelf life of a product is highly dependent on the properties of the
package.

Attributes associated with this function are the material of the package
and its ability to withstand environmental conditions that include temperature
fluctuations, migration, or hazards that may puncture or break the package.
Other attributes associated with this function include the ability to prevent
tampering by outsiders or chemical reactions resulting from outside factors.

iii. Communication

Communication includes product labeling, branding, information about
the product, as well as unspoken information the consumer interprets
themselves. Attention to a package is determined both by the properties of
the package itself and by factors that rest in the consumers past experiences
(Nasalroad 1992). A consumer adds what the package communicates to his
or her existing knowledge and formulates a perception of the product.
Consumers evaluate the benefits they believe they will receive from

purchasing a particular type of package/product system. If the package can

evoke a thought of benefit and a positive feeling, the more willing a
consumer is to buy it. It has been stated that your package becomes your
product (Fox 1987) and it appears at the point where the peak in the
decision-making process occurs (Peters 1994).

Attributes associated with packaging communication include the size,
shape, and type of package. The transparency or opacity of a package can
signal information about the product; a transparent package can give the
consumer a better understanding of the contents while consumers need to
draw their own conclusions about an opaque package. Size and shape are
also attributes that likely influence purchase behavior. In addition, any
labeling, graphics, or messages that are present on a package fall into this
category. A consumer that is shopping for fat free milk needs the package to
communicate what he or she is looking for. Messages that indicate a greater
value can also influence a consumer’s purchase intentions.

iv. Utility

Utility is the package’s ability to aid in the use or dispensing of the
product (Abbott 1989). This includes the opening, closing, reuse, storage
and disposal, among other actions performed while using a package.
Many times packages are created with “easy to use” features like a pull tab
for soda pop or a specially designed handle for laundry detergent. Attributes
typically associated with this function of packaging are features of the
package that aid in its use, storage or disposal. A package made of a
specific material that is easy to recycle has an attribute that also falls into

this function category.

10

IV. The Michigan Cherry Industry

The Michigan cherry industry has a need to develop packaging for its
products that is more focused on end-user purchasing in order to expand its
market. Currently, Michigan produces about 70-75% of the total tart cherry crop
in the USA, about 250 million pounds out of a total 350 million pounds nation
wide (Michigan Department of Agriculture 2006). In 2003, Michigan’s production
of red tart cherries was 154 million pounds, grossing more than $57 million
dollars (USDA/NASS 2005).

However, profits have experienced a decline due to global competition,
mainly from Poland. Poland‘s share of tart cherry imports into the USA increased
from 6% in 1986 to 18% in 2004 (Thorsbury and Woods 2005). Competitors from
Poland have developed superior packaging for products like cherry juice that is
easy to use, adequately protects the product, and fulfills consumer needs. Some
of the current cherry juice packages, including polyethylene jugs, and aluminum
bottles, that Michigan manufacturers use do not adequately protect the product,
enabling it to oxidize, resulting in the loss of health benefits and an off-flavor and
odor (Paz-Gonzales 2006). It is clear that the package does not meet the needs
of the product or of the consumer.

Preserving the nutraceutical benefits of tart cherry juice and
communicating these benefits to potential consumers has become a primary goal
of the Michigan-based growers of cherries. A nutraceutical is, “a comprehensive
term which includes foods, dietary supplements, and medical foods that have a

health-medical benefit including the prevention and/or treatment of disease,”

11

(DeFelice 2002). These foods include elements like antioxidants and oxygen
radical absorption capacity units (ORACs), and are packed with nutrients. All of
these substances may help prevent heart disease, cancer, arthritis, and help to
promote a healthy life style. “Nutraceuticals compete in the vitamin and
pharmaceutical market, and tend to be marketed as such through product and
shelf positioning in stores,” (Hobbs 2002).

Tart cherries are a wealthy source of antioxidants (Wang et al. 1999). An
antioxidant is a radical inhibitor found in foods (Bruice 2001) which can help
protect against damaging oxidation of cell walls and structures in the body.
Compounds that prevent oxidation have oxygen radial absorption capacity units
(ORAC), units that exist to absorb free radical oxygen molecules that can cause
damage to human tissues and organs. Tart cherries were found to have the 14th
highest capacity of ORAC units of foods tested in one study (Halvorsen 2006).
Table 1: Antioxidant Content of nghest Containing Foods

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rank Product Antioxidant Content
(mmol/serving)

1 Blackberries 4.746

2 Walnuts 3.721

3 Strawberries 3.584

4 Artichokes, prepared 3.559

5 Cranberries 3.125

6 Coffee 2.959

7 Raspberries 2.870

8 Pecans 2.741

9 Blueberries 2.680

10 Cloves, ground 2.637

11 Grape juice 2.557

12 Chocolate, bakLng, unsweetened 2.516

13 Cranberry Juice 2.474

14 Cherries, sour 2.205

15 Wine, red 2.199

16 Power Bar", chocolate Flavored 1.875

17 Pineapple Juice 1.859
(Halvorsen 2006)

12

Tart cherry products also have scavengers of super oxide anions called
superoxide dismutase (SODs). These are enzymes that act as extremely
powerful antioxidants and are contained in very few natural foods (Cherry
Advantage 2003). Antioxidant compounds provide the benefits of cancer
protection, slow rates of portions of the aging process, prevent heart disease, and
increase the health of the immune system. Antioxidants may also be beneficial
during treatment for cancer patients. In a study performed with cancer patients
undergoing radiation therapy, it was found that patients taking antioxidant
supplements, “had a better quality of life without any adverse affects,” after
treatment (Prasad et. al 2002). It is suggested that the antioxidant compounds
help protect normal cells while inhibiting cancer cells from growing.

Studies at both Michigan State University (MSU) and Oregon State
University (OSU) have verified other health promoting compounds to be present
in tart cherries. These other compounds include anthocyanins, and phenols.
Anthocyanin is a flavanoid compound found in the skins of many fruits, flowers,
and vegetables (Bruice 2001) and is responsible for cherries’ red color. These
compounds act as anti-inflammatory agents and were found to be more plentiful
in Michigan tart cherries than that of commercial aspirin or ibuprofen (Wang et al.
1999). This may explain why arthritic pain and gout were reported to have been
alleviated by the consumption of cherries (Blau 1950). Certain flavanoid
compounds in tart cherries can break up monosodium urate, which causes some
forms of arthritis (Cherry Marketing Institute 2006). Another potential explanation

may be the abundance of other compounds that can inhibit the COX 1 and COX

13

2 enzymes, which are produced by the body as a response to pain. When these
enzymes are inhibited, the body does not feel pain. These properties indicate tart
cherry juice may be helpful in fighting against chronic pain.

Phenols or polyphenols are carbon based molecules that are found in
many fruits and plants (Seeram and Heber 2003). Ellagic acid is among the
many phenolic compounds found in tart cherries (Cherry Marketing Institute
2007) that may provide some healthful benefits to consumers. Ellagic acid is a
powerful antioxidant that has been proven to be absorbed by humans from food
sources (Seram and Heber 2004). Other phenolies found in tart cherries have
shown to protect neuronal cells from oxidative stress (Kim et. al 2005). These
compounds may offer added health benefits to consumers. These benefits will,
undoubtedly become an important part of the packaging and labeling that is used
to market the juice of tart cherries.

However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has only a few
approved health claims about nutrients related to specific diseases, and these do
not include anthocyanins‘ or phenols found in cherries. If the FDA has not
specifically approved the health claims, those benefits cannot be put on the
labels. In October 2005, the FDA informed companies producing cherry products
labeled with benefits suggesting the products fight cancer, arthritis, gout, heart
disease, among others, that the products were considered drugs. Further, the
FDA considered these products illegal drugs because they had not undergone
the specific protocol for approval by the FDA, and threatened to seize them if they
were not relabeled or taken off the shelf (Greensberg 2005). Therefore, because

manufacturers cannot at present indicate health claims regarding the ability of

14

ingredients to fight or prevent disease, the packaging must convey that message
In another way.

The need to earn consumer purchasing intentions made cherry juice an
ideal candidate for this research project. The package must convey the
nutraceutical benefits of the product in order to support the marketing strategy.
To get tart cheny juice and tart cherry juice concentrate to market, utilization of the
correct package is vital. The packaging must communicate to the consumer the
healthful benefits of this product and be congruent with the consumer's image of

juice packaging.

15

Chapter 2 - Literature Review

If the consumer does not foresee the product fulfilling needs, it will be
discarded from consideration and will not be purchased. Additionally, the
consumer must see the product as a solution to their problem for it to fulfill
their needs. Unmet consumer needs can result in a negative perception and
consumer desertion of a product (Beverland 2006). For example, specific
attributes of wine can influence consumer perception (Beverland 2006).
Consumers of wine look for authenticity composed of six attributes:

. heritage and pedigree,

o stylistic consistency,

- quality commitments,

0 relationship to place,

0 method of production, and

o downplaying commercial motives.
Wines that did not meet these criteria were less valued and less preferred;
demonstrating unmet needs result in abandonment of the product.

A second example is devastating effect New Coke had on the Coca-
Cola Company in the 19803. In 1985, Chairman Roberto Goizueta
announced the launch of “the most significant soft drink development in the
company’s (Coca-Cola) history,” (Peter and Olson 2005). The company
released a newly formulated soft drink, “New Coke,” which changed the 99
year old formula. The company changed the taste in order to regain market

share from their competitor Pepsi. However, the change was not well

16

received by consumers. Not only did the company lose market share, but
they lost the loyalty of millions of consumers who, eventually, organized a
campaign to bring the old coke back (Oliver 1986). This further suggests that
consumers who do not find their needs met will not purchase a product.

In addition to functional needs, a product must connect to the
consumer on an emotional level. This can trigger past positive experiences
that will inspire them to buy that product (Fleischman 1966). This has to do
with the affect a consumer experiences when presented with a product
(Figure 4). Connecting the affective response with cognition enables
consumers to formulate thoughts about the product and decide whether or
not to purchase. People who have expectations for a product are likely to
form thoughts that are consistent with those expectations (Wyer and Srull
1989). The way a consumer thinks AND feels about a product, can ultimately
influence their purchase intention. Intention to purchase depends on the
degree to which consumers expect the product to satisfy them when they
consume it (Kupiec and Revell 2001). If expectations of satisfaction are

high, intentions to purchase are high, and consumption will likely occur.
I. Influence of Attributes

It is crucial that both the product and consumer be considered during
package design; both the labeling and the package send messages
regarding the product and its ability to fulfill a consumer’s needs. Attempting
to design a package with the consumer in mind decreases the likelihood that
any features a consumer searches for will be overlooked (Pullman, Moore,

and Wardell 2002). Therefore, manufacturers and designers must know

17

what the specific elements of a package suggest to consumers in order to
send a clear message. They must know what attributes a consumer will look
for in a product and design a package that will convey those attributes.

A survey of 380 University students in Poland investigated the kinds of
packaging attributes that influence consumer choices of fruit juices (Cichon
and Ucherek 1999). They found that functionality, capacity, ecological
aspect, general look, and shape were among the top five attributes that
determined consumer choice of packaging, with the first impression and first
look at a package as the most important part of influencing purchasing
behavior. Forty three percent respondents said package appearance could
influence perception of product quality. Thus, the package can influence
what a consumer thinks of a product. It can convey a positive image,
suggesting benefits to the consumer, or a negative one, indicating the
consumer probably will not benefit from purchasing it. Therefore, a package
must indicate to consumers how the product and its attributes will benefit
them. Cichon and Ucherek suggest what the consumer perceives at first
look of a package and formulates as a first impression is the most important
part of influencing purchasing behavior.

Consumer perception can be facilitated by what the package
communicates about the product. Participants in a study investigating the
process of selecting beverages were found to make a choice based on the
freshness or quality suggested by the packages (Zeithaml 1988).
Researchers of that beverage study were able to better understand what

consumers perceive about products and what motivates them to buy.

18

Discovering and using these motives and the driving factors behind
purchasing behavior is an extremely fertile ground for marketing experts
(Peri 2006) which can later be translated into packaging designs.

Visual package elements play a major role, representing the product for
many consumers. The size/shape and information of a package relate more to the
affective side of consumer decision making (Silayoi and Speece 2004). These
affective responses are the emotions or the feelings a consumer experiences
upon decision making. For example, a consumer may feel a twinge of
excitement when viewing a uniquely shaped bottle, possibly persuading them to
consider it as a solution to their problem at hand. Other visual elements, like
colors and graphics, were also discussed in this study’s (Silayoi and Speece
2004) focus groups. Consumers agreed that these attributes had an influence on
their purchase decisions. It appears, utilizing these features on a product to send
a clear message to the consumer of how that product may benefit them, is a step
toward earning purchasing behaviors.

The package also tends to aid in purchasing decisions when the consumer
is uncertain of what choice to make. Consumers make decisions based on a
problem they need to solve. In a situation where they are unsure about their
choice, it becomes more difficult and the consumer must gather external
information. When a package design can give a consumer information about a
product, it adds a sense of quality to the product and can aid the consumer in his
or her choice. In situations where the consumer is unsure of what decision to

make, the package design has been used as a quality cue (Stokes 1984). This

19

means that packaging can help make a decision for a consumer when they are
unsure of which brand/size/type of product they want to buy.

The choice of a product can also be heavily influenced by the
package’s material, (Van Dam and Van Trijp 1993) which is an example of a
packaging attribute. Much like packaging is an attribute of a product, the
packaging has its own attributes. These include the materials it is made
from, color, size, shape and labeling. One example of how package material
can affect product choices is the different perceptions of plastic and glass
beer bottles. A 2006 survey reveled that most consumers (95%) prefer beer
in glass bottles as compared to plastic (George 2006). Of the respondents
that preferred glass, 37% perceive that beer stays colder longer in glass
bottles. Ultimately, the belief that glass bottles maintain colder beer for
longer periods of time, a functional attribute, leads to consumers choosing
the glass bottle over the plastic because it enables them to fulfill their goal of
drinking cold beer.

A package must also coincide with consumer’s expectations of the
product. The traditional wine bottle versus a bag in a box packaging system
is one such example. For years, consumers thought only glass wine bottles
with real cork closures were quality products. They expect that other
packages do not provide as good of a product. However, the bag in box
packaging system provides better protection from constantly changing
temperatures, hard handling conditions, exposure to light, and oxidation

(Tinney 2005).

20

A 2002 study supports that consumer expectations must agree with
the packaging for a positive response. Consumers were presented with beer,
juice, and hot chocolate in three different containers; an amber beer bottle, a
cylindrical glass, and a ceramic coffee cup (Raudenbrush et al. 2002).
Consumers rated the pleasantness and intensity on a 0-10 scale. The
beverages that were congruent with container expectations received higher
scores than those that were incongruent. This suggests that beverages
inconsistent with their packages will be perceived less positively than ones
matching expectancy.

Beverage packages are of particular interest, because beverages cannot be
distributed without containers (Van Dam and Van Trip 1993). A consumer
focused product/package is vital to earn the purchasing behavior of consumers.
It must protect the product as well as communicate beneficial attributes to the
consumer and convey the message manufacturers wish to suggest.

Marketers and package designers have tried various strategies in an effort
to gain purchase intentions of consumers. Whether it is a label that expresses
benefits of the product, eye catching colors, or a design that caters to the needs
of consumers, companies have repositioned and reintroduced products in order
to increase sales. In 2002, Shem/in Williams reintroduced its Dutch Boy ® brand
of paint. The new ”Twist and Pour” was the first and only package of its type in
the market. The plastic, square-shaped package featured an easy twist off lid, a
handle and a pour spout that came in the gallon size. The redesign of the
container focused on females, who were found to be a large portion of those

purchasing the product and making decorating decisions (DNS Retailing Today

21

2002). The company has seen “multiple quarters of increase market share”
(Arnold 2003) and had an enormous amount of attention from the market.

Similar results came from the redesign of the “Milk Chug” produced by
Deans Food Company. Like the Dutch Boy redesign, the Milk Chug centered on
meeting unmet consumer needs. In 1997, the company launched their milk in
resealable plastic bottles that were targeted at 13-24 year olds and families
(Jensen 1997). The small, 8 oz. containers were single serve, re-closable, and fit
easily in a car cup holder or lunch box. Deans Food Co. responded to
consumers need for a drink on the go and the market reacted positively to the
redesign with an increase in sales. In 1998 the company saw a 96% increase in
sales of chocolate pints of milk and a 77% increase in sales of pints overall
(Markgraf 1998). The change, in fact, had influence over the entire category, not
just Deans. Markets without the new package stayed flat or declined, while those
with the new chugs grew 1.3% (Thompson 1998).

Recently, the Michigan cherry industry has attempted to meet consumer
needs and reposition their products by emphasizing the healthful benefits of tart
cherries. Although a marketing scheme is in place, an analysis of what
packaging best communicates healthful benefits to consumers has yet to be
established. By testing different types of beverage packaging, this project aims
to identify what packaging elements convey the nutraceutical benefits of tart

cherry juice to consumers.

22

Chapter 3 - Research Methods

l. Objectives
The overall objective of this research is to identify which elements of a
package communicate nutraceutical properties of tart cherry juice. This study
investigates the functions of packaging as attributes of the product, as well as
other characteristics to observe if they have an effect on consumer perception.
More specifically, this research intends to:
A Identify how different types of beverage packages may influence
consumer’s perception of a product
A Provide information and evidence to the cherry industry about the
impact beverage packaging may have on consumer perception of
their product; and

A Develop a Means End Chain for cherry juice

ll. Methods

i. Focus Groups
A focus group is a group of eight to ten people together discussing a
similar topic. The goal of a focus group is to listen and gather information from
the participants. The people for these groups are selected because they have
something in common. In this case, the participants all drank juice. Six consumer
focus groups were conducted to examine consumer perceptions of juice

packaging and package attributes that convey healthful benefits.

23

ii. Commsmg' ' n of Focus Grougs
Due to the suggested beneficial effects of cherry juice consumption for

diseases like arthritis, heart disease, and cancer, cherry juice has traditionally
been marketed to those who are at higher risk for these diseases. (See appendix
G) In all cases, the prevalence of these diseases increases with age. The aim of
this study was to expand the focus of the cherry industry into other markets,
suggesting cheny juice is not just for a specific population with diseases, but for
everyone.

The groups were composed of three different types of consumers: mothers
with children between the ages of four and twelve, adults aged 24—29, and adults
aged 41-51. Two different group sessions were conducted with each of the three
types of consumer groups (see Table 2 for information about the composition of
the groups). Table 2 gives some information about the number of participants
who drank cherry juice.

Table 2: Composition of Focus Groups

 

 

 

 

 

Average
Total Males Females Age Education

41-51 82.6% completed college or
year olds 23 10 13 46.7 above
24-29 77.7% completed college or
year olds 18 8 10 25.8 above

72.2% completed college or
Mothers 18 0 18 38.4 above

80.0% completed college or
Total 59 18 41 above

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Participants who had at least tried cherry juice

 

41-51 year olds 2429 year olds Mothers with children

 

 

9 5 7

 

 

 

 

24

Recruitment of participants began approximately two weeks before the
focus groups were conducted using a variety of resources. Flyers were posted
throughout the campus community, two campus list serves (one that was
composed of breast feeding mothers and a second composed of those caring for
an elderly family member) and word of mouth advertising were all used to recruit
participants for the six focus groups. Potential focus group participants were
instructed to contact a member of the research team who then performed a
screening questionnaire (see appendix A). The questionnaire was used to
eliminate those who were not within the target population of the study.

Exclusion criteria were as follows: peOple who indicated that they did not
drink juice, and/or people who did not fall into the targeted age range. For
participants that qualified, name, age, and contact information were recorded and
they were informed of the specifics of the study. Further contact was made by a
member of the research team, reminding qualified participants of the time and
date of the focus group. Ten to twelve participants were recmited with the
intention that at least 8-10 would attend each focus group session. As a result of
the recruiting technique, participants were recruited from Michigan State
University‘s campus and the surrounding Lansing area. The focus groups were
held at Michigan State University in the Communication Arts and Sciences
building in room 182, during weekday evenings. Two focus groups were

conducted for each of the three demographic groups previously mentioned

lll. Materials
Eight different package types were used in this study. The study aimed to

include the most common packages presently used for juice in today’s US.

25

marketplace. It also included some packages that are popular in other global

markets.

Packaging types tested included:

glass bottles,

gable top cartons,

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles,

tetra packs® (brick packs),

aluminum bottles,

High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) bottles,

flexible pouches,

specially designed glass and plastic bottles for POM ®
Wonderful Pomegranate Juice

OOOOOOOO

i. Glass Bottles

According to the Global Marketing Information Database (GMID), glass
bottles are expected to grow in the market as a package for high quality drinks
(GMID 2006). The GMID reports a potential rise in the use of glass for functional
drinks and ready-to-drink coffee suggesting that “natural products using high
quality ingredients” would be a perfect fit for glass packaging (GMID 2006).

Glass bottles used in this project were donated by St. Gobaln, (Scottsdale,
AZ). (See Figure 5). The bottles have a capacity of 12.75 fluid ounces, a narrow
neck, and are identified by mold number 43560123. They are 7.719 inches in
height, have a diameter of 2.492 inches, and a continuous thread finish
(designation 38-400). The bottles were sealed with metal screw caps with
plastisol liners (SG containers 2007). The glass bottles are clear with gold caps1
and were filled with juice to a consistent level. A total of twelve bottles were used

for this research project.

 

' For a more technical description please see Gonzales 2007

26

and were filled with juice to a consistent level. A total of twelve bottles were used

for this research project.

 

Figure 5- Glass Bottle

ii. Gable Top Cartons

The gable top carton was introduced in 1915 when it was patented by J.
Van Wormer. However it was not until the 19303 that Ex—Cell-O commercialized
its use. This new alternative to glass was lighter weight and reduced the cost of
filling (Twede and Selke 2005).

Today in the marketplace, gable top cartons are used for milk, juices,
protein drinks, and many other beverages. “Gable-top liquid cartons remain an
economical choice for 100% juice, nectars and some RTD (Ready-to-Drink) tea,
offering good barrier protection for perishable products as well as easy stacking
on refrigerated shelves,”(GMlD 2006). The use of a continuous thread closure in
gable tops make beverages easy to pour and ideal for repeat use. In 2005 GMID
reported that there were 2.2 billion gable top cartons used for fruit and vegetable

juices and 336 million used for functional drinks.

27

The gable top cartons for this study were donated by Elo—Pak, New
Hudson, Ml (see Figure 6). The cartons are made of plastic coated bleached
kraft-paper and have a height of 7.512 inches with a width and depth of 2.9595
inches. They are equipped with a pour spout with a continuous thread closure
and a polypropylene cap. The cartons were provided un-printed and filled to
capacity with 25 fluid ounces of water. Only eight cartons were procured for
testing, so participants had to share in instances when there were more than

eight participants during a focus group session.

 

Figure 6- Gable Top Carton

iii. Polyethjdene teraphthalate (PET) bottles

Since its introduction in the 19703, PET has steadily gained a foothold in
almost every type of beverage industry. “For manufacturers seeking portable,
single-serve convenience, PET remains, by far the most popular material, being

lightweight, clear and unbreakable" (GMID 2005). In 2005, approximately 68

28

billion units of PET bottles were used for beverages in the United States and that
number is expected to continue growing by 87 billion in 2010 (GMID 2005).

For this study, PET bottles were purchased from Sam's Club", (Lansing,
MI) as beverage containers for Tropicana“ (see Figure 7). The bottles have a
height of 6.692 inches with a maximum diameter of 2.2345 inches. The bottles
are equipped with a 1.23 inch continuous thread closure and threaded
polypropylene cap.

Labels were removed and the bottles were scrubbed with hot water and
sponges to remove excess labels and adhesive. In addition, Goo-Gone" was
used to remove any excess adhesive on the bottles. The bottles were filled with

juice to a consistent level. Twelve bottles were used for the focus groups.

 

Figure 7- Polyethylene Terephthalate Bottle

iv. Tetra b ' brick cks
The tetra brick (Figure 8) also called the brick pack, was invented in
Sweden in the 19503 by Akertaund & Reusing. The package, made of plastic
coated paperboard, was a formed and filled tetrahedron (T wede and Selke 2005).

sizes of brick packs are actually thought to have higher quality products by some
consumers. But those packages and products are those that are often imported
to the states from other countries (GMID 2006). Therefore, it is the consumer’s
perception that no quality products produced in the US. are packaged in tetra
bricks.

The tetra brick was chosen for this study due to its popularity
internationally. In 2005, 1.9 billion brick packs were used for fruit and vegetable
juices in the United Kingdom alone (GMID 2006). During this same time period,
the U. S. consumed 1.1 billion packs for fruit and vegetable juices. By contrast, in
Japan, 786 million brick packs were used for fruit and vegetable juice, but over
5.6 billion were used for other beverages like specialty drinks, ready-to-drink
teas, and concentrates. The success of the brick pack outside the US. market
demonstrates potential for it to grow within the U. S.

Hershey’s chocolate milk (8 fluid ounce) brick packs were purchased from
a Mejier Retail and Grocery SuperCenter (Lansing, MI) (see Figure 8). The brick
packs have dimensions of 4.1645 inches by 2.635 inches by 1.57 and held 8 fluid
ounces of liquid. The packs were inconsistent the other treatments because they
were printed. As such, spray paint was applied to cover the labeling. A coat of
flat white Rust-Oleum® High performance enamel was used to paint the packs,
leaving a blank white surface. Several coats were applied to ensure that no
information from the label was visible. Finally, three coats of glossy white Rust-
Oleum® high performance enamel was used to paint the tetra bricks, so they had

a shiny finish. The brick packs were purchased containing 8 fluid 02 of liquid and

30

information from the label was visible. Finally, three coats of glossy white Rust-
Oleum® high performance enamel was used to paint the tetra bricks, so they had
a shiny finish. The brick packs were purchased containing 8 fluid 02 of liquid and
that amount was used for the focus groups. Twelve brick packs were used for

the focus groups.

 

Figure 8-Tetra Brick (brick pack)
v. Aluminum bottles

The aluminum bottle is a newcomer to the world of beverage packaging. It
was first introduced in Japan and has been used all over the world for alcoholic
beverages, energy drinks, and most recently, for beer in the US. (Lukas 2005).
The aluminum bottle is lightweight and recyclable, making it a good option for
juice containers.

The aluminum bottles used for this study were donated by CCL containers
(Hermitage, PA) (see Figure 9). The bottles have a capacity of 18 fluid ounces
and a height of 7.953 inches with a maximum diameter of 2.5850 inches. The
closure system is an aluminum cap with a size 38 snap slug that matches a

polyethylene lug coating on the finish of the bottle. The bottles were filled with

31

water to a consistent fill level of 18 fluid ounces and 12 bottles were used for the

focus groups.

 

Figure 9- Aluminum Bottle

vi. Hi h Dens' P th ne HDPE Bottles

Another newcomer to the world of packaging is the High Density
Polyethylene (HDPE) 'Chug""’. Although HDPE bottles have been used in the
packaging industry previously, this particular design and shape was introduced in
1997 by the Deans Food Company. The HDPE bottle was chosen for this projed
because of its positive impact on the dairy market.

The High Density Polyethylene bottles were purchased from Sam’s Club“,
(Lansing, MI) in the form of beverage containers for Dean'sm chocolate milk (see
Figure 10). The containers have a capacity of 16 fluid ounces and a height of
6.890 inches with a maximum diameter of 2.624 inches. The closure system is a
(36 mm) continuous thread closure. The shrink sleeve labels and milk were

removed, and any excess milk was rinsed from the package with warm water.

32

Twelve packages were used for this study and filled with water in order to

simulate juice filled bottles.

 

Figure 10- High Density Polyethylene Bottle
vii. Flexible Stand Up muches

The flexible stand up pouch has commonly been used in the industry for
fruit drinks. In 2005 GMID indicates the lead maker of pouches expanded use of
the packages into 100% fruit juices and some functional drinks in the US (GMID
2006). During that same year, over 4.2 billion flexible pouches were used for fruit
and vegetable juice drinks, with another 768 million used for functional drinks.
The Euromonitor reports, “pouches are a popular choice for single-serve juice
among both parents and children,” (GMID 2006) making them an ideal candidate
for packaging cherry juice in a single serve, on-the—go manner. The flexible
pouch is also light weight and, in this case, reclosable.

The flexible stand up pouches were donated to this project by
Performance Packaging (Las Vegas, NV) (see Figure 11). The packages tested
were a multi layered laminate of polypropylene (PP) / aluminum / high density

polyethylene (HDPE). Finished containers held 7 fluid ounces. The overall

33

thickness of the pouch material is approximately 5 mils and the threaded closure-
caps system is made of polypropylene. They have a height of 6.890 inches and a
width of 3.079 inches.

Donated pouches were printed, 30, as with the brick packs, pouches were
painted to create a neutral treatment. A coat of chrome Rust-Oleum® was
applied using several thin coats until the information on the label did not show
through. As with the HDPE bottles pouches were also filled with water (6.5-7 oz.)
to simulate a juice product inside. Only eight pouches were procured for testing,
so participants had to share in instances when there were more than eight

participants per focus group.

 

Figure 11- Flexible Stand Up Pouch
viii. POM Wonderfulo Eckages
Three POM® packages were presented to focus group participants (see
Figure 12) after they had finished discussions of the seven different types of
packages for juice products and nutraceutiuls. Two of the POM® packages were
made of glass and the third was made of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET). The

packages measures 6.811 inches tall and the glass package had a maximum

diameter of 3.2160 inches while the plastic had a maximum diameter of 2.3150
inches. The proprietary shape resembles two spheres, one on top the other. The
POM® bottle was introduced in late 2002 as a package for pomegranate juice and
were purchased for this project from Goodrich’s Grocery Store (East Lansing,

Ml).

 

Figure 12-POM® Wonderful Package

Like cherry juice, pomegranate juice makes claims of healthful properties

that are beneficial to those that drink it (Fuhrrnan et. al 2005; Pantuck et. al 2006;

Lansky and Newman 2007). The intention was that this package would serve to

catalyze comparisons for today’s marketplace regarding juice packaging and
healthful attributes.
IV. Procedures

The focus groups lasted no more than an hour and a half and the

participants were asked a series of questions from an IRB approved moderator

guide (see appendix B- IRB-06-844) about the first seven packages. Participants

were seated at a rectangular table. Each focus group was video recorded and

researchers took notes while the sessions occurred.

35

Before the beginning of each focus group, consent forms, approved under
IRB 06-844 / APP# i025745, were signed and collected (see Appendix C), as well
as demographic information (see Appendix D). After introductions were made,
the discussion began with a warm up question and general comments about
packaging, asking participants whether or not packaging was something they
noticed when shopping (see Figure 13 for a visual representation of procedure).
Afterward, the different package types discussed in the materials section, with the
exception of the POM® package, were presented to the participants, and where
possible, each consumer received one of each type of package. The exceptions
were the flexible pouch and the gable top carton, limited supplies forced
participants to share these containers. The participants were asked to rank, on a
scale of 1 to 7, which package they liked best and which package they liked least
(1=Best; 7=Least). Following the individual rankings, the moderator asked the
participants to publicly identify which package they liked best and give a brief
description of the reasons for their choice. General discussion was held about the
characteristics of the package that made the participants choose it as their
favorite. The moderator then asked the participants to identify which package
they liked the least and a brief discussion was held on the reasons for their
choices. Next, the moderator asked the participants to identify, if any, beverage
packages they did not see amongst the seven in front of them. Packages
mentioned were discussed further, to identify the characteristics the participants
liked and did not like about those specific packages.

At this point, discussion was directed to juice and types of juice packaging

the participants commonly purchased. The characteristics of the products and

36

juice packages mentioned were discussed to get a feel for what the consumers
typically looked for when shopping. Next, a question was raised about the
package’s ability to send a message about the product and it was discussed on
how a package could convey healthful benefits to consumers. The participants
were then asked about nutraceuticals and the healthy properties of cheny juice.
Participants were encouraged to volunteer what, if any, information they knew
about cherry juice. Then the participants were asked if there was any way that a
package could communicate to consumers the nutraceutical properties of cheny
juice. The discussion focused on package type as well as some characteristics
of the label that could be utilized to communicate with consumers. Finally the
participants were asked to imagine there was cherry juice inside the packages in
front of them. They were asked to consider a package that would best
communicate the nutraceutical properties of the juice to consumers and display a
healthy image. Once again, the consumers were asked to rank scale of 1 to 7,
which they liked best to which they liked least. (1=Best; 7=Least). The moderator
asked the participants to hold up the package they liked the best for cherry juice
and discussion followed about why consumers made their selections.

As a last measure, the moderator presented the participants with the
POM® juice package; both in glass and in plastic. The discussion was open to
participants to suggest what they liked and did not like about the packages. They
were asked what about the package might indicate healthy benefits. The
moderator then asked for any final thoughts or comments about topics that were

discussed. Finally, incentives were distributed to the participants.

37

3:05 mace.— .2 :o_mm:ow_o co 26: .9956 ”9 9:9".

 

   

      
       

umSnEmfi
mac; mm>_Emoc_
83:86 832
o5 so >=m Sonm
scenes .2: c2

umxmm 885522 .9

503cm camxoma
©EOc .35 so meseczm
c>=mmoc ucm games
95.63.. 56385 :80
0583 cam mama 58
E mEmEoEma 2 newcomma
9m; wmomxoma ®_>_On_ .3

 

 

 

moms: >5_me; >235
ucm 35805 525895:
95 >o>coo .mmn Ego;

“m5 $9.03 05 52200-85.
Eons 53> 3:... 2m mommxoma
ce>om m5 co __m 259.5
2 umxmm 9m $622th .9

86:0 “men s5 = oumE “m5
ommxoma o5 .6 mmsntum m5
uEEmmwc nozmcm commzomfi
cease E as; 2 E
“men .85 ES 5 mommxoma
Sn. 2 coxmm 9m mEmgoEma
.meEoo 25 :_5_>> .m—

 

m_5 on 2:8 .82 m5 So; so
commsumfi 3332.2 .25 $983
$286 9 823 mm; 9.65 m5 3:“.
-mo_:_ 5050 so 950:3 52589.5:

m5 >m>coo 2:8 ommxoma m

26: Exam 2m 5532th .2

 

 

I
A

 

 

 

_

85.. .8 mcaaocm
can; 38 x8. £590qu .mEs
so mcficmficouc: cm “m5 ow ummmzomfi
2m 3555:. mm “m5 wcmmxuma
023.. cam 85.. m5 so 85:209sz
-mcamxomc 85.. co 57,385 25
82:9 mam wEma_o_tmn_ .m

 

E as; 9 A 5 a2
LmEo Em. S $59.03
Sn 2 coxmm 2m mEmEoEmn. .v

959.3 .2533
>o>coo 2:8 ommxoma
8:: m 26: .>__mo_.=oeaw
.5385 m 5on mmmmmmoE
beam 2 >==nm Mommxoma
m Sonm mxmm .9925: .m

8:; >Emcu Scam 26$. >m5 umEs mcmzm
2 ummmSoocm Em mEmEoEmc -85..
>Emco so 35805 3562 m5 ocm

_._mo=:mom5::.. Eco“ o5 5E SEES 9m
5522th t mxmm LoamcmuoE one .9

 

           

BEBE 8: 90;
>05 65 mommxoma
ommcm>on >cm
88% can .582
2 wscmaefima
mxwm 85ch22 .h

mEmaBEma 8
3255
E903 mmomxomn. .m

 

w

 

7.; Exam.

95 m5 >55 so cozmcmaxm
Eta m 95 ucm comxoma
2:95 55 $0.86
22.55 9 2592th
mxmm 5.92322 .m

+

:K Umxcm. 0:0 £5
>2; .6 cozmcmfixo EB m
95 ucm mmmxoma 9:96..

Emu. :05 328%

>633 2 £592th

mxmm someones. .m

 

 

 

9.35m 30> can; mono: 30> $3
9.59:8 acamxoma m... E0583 .8 mm: cecgm ucm
a: E.m>>-mc_mmxoma Co 86386 855.56

mELoF Eomcoo .—

UmOLn Dcm Cozoauobc— .N

 

 

 

38

Chapter 4 - Methods for Analysis

The data for this study were analyzed in several different ways:
I. The rank order was used to analyze data for shifts using SPSS.
ll. Abridge transcripts were created and broken into thought units, coded, and
inputted into SPSS for analysis
Ill. The discussion and comments from the focus groups were analyzed using
abridged transcript, notes and review of the video recordings. Using the
long table approach, themes were identified and a Means End Chain for

Cherry juice was created.

I. AnalysisofPackage Rankings
Rankings that were collected during steps 4 and 13 of the focus group
(see Figure 13) were keyed into SPSS and analyzed using cross-tabs, chi-
squared analysis to test if there were significant differences between rank
ordering before and after the discussion of cherry juice. In addition, cross-tabs,
chi-squared analysis was used to test if there were significant differences
between demographic groups in the participants’ selection of their favorite
package
ll. Thought UnitAnalysis
During the sessions, researchers took notes and tried to highlight the
common themes of the focus group. In addition, the sessions were video
recorded and after all sessions were completed, a researcher reviewed the tapes
and created an abridged transcript. An abridged transcript is a method for

creating material to analyze focus groups (Krueger and Casey 2000). This

39

method includes a researcher viewing and listening to a video recording tape of
each respective session and transcribing only the pertinent information to the
study. An abridge transcript is, “a condensed version of the focus group with
irrelevant conversation removed,” (Krueger and Casey 2000). To ensure the
researcher did not focus on particular themes heard in previous focus groups, no
tapes were transcribed until after all focus groups were completed.

Although focus groups are typically the source of qualitative data, it is
possible to create a quantitative analysis from the information gathered through a
technique referred to as “content analysis.” This technique includes the rigorous
analysis of the content using, “approaches that emphasize the reliability and
replicability of the observations and subsequent interpretations,” (Stewart and
Shamdasani 1990). In this case, a system was created that broke the focus
group transcripts into thought units. Each unit was then coded with a scheme
that was created based on the major functions of packaging (containment,
communication, protection, and utility) and further broken down with the
constructs of the means-end chain theory. An “other” category resulted for
statements that did not fit logically the functions of packaging, but it was used
sparingly. A total of 24 sub categories resulted.

Due to the large amount of data and multiple categories, decision rules
were created in order to aid researchers to qualify statements into the most
appropriate categories. A unit was first categorized in the funcn'ons of packaging,
and then further qualified as a functional consequence, psychosocial
consequence, or a value. These rules enabled the data to be broken up for a

more indepth analysis.

40

Two coders were used in We study to establish reliability. Coders for this
study both had previously taken courses in understanding and applying the main
functions of packaging, as well as the means-end chain theory. The coders
spent approximately 15 hours reviewing the data, revising the codebook and
decision rules. Units were coded separately by the two coders, using 5% of the
overall data using the coding sheet and decision rules. The initial intercoder
reliability was satisfactory (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.73; see and off appendix E: Steps
1-8 for calculation). Discrepancies were discussed and resolved over another
time period of approximately 3 hours to improve understanding of the decision
rules.

i. Containment

As mentioned, containment is the function of the package that enables the
product to be moved. It is defined as the package’s ability to allow the product to
be handled, used, and transported. Statements in this category pertained to the
package’s enclosure of the product and use it incurred from that enclosure (e.g.
“its contained in one unit” or “I’d rather have the glass, it feels different than this
plastic”).

ii. Protection

Protection was defined as guarding or preserving the product for use, or
against any outside environmental factors. Statements regarding protection of the
product attributes for its required shelf life or from external hazards were coded in
this category. In addition statements that indicated the product’s interaction with

the package fell into this category (e.g. “It tastes better in aluminum”).

41

iii. Communication

Communication was defined as statements suggesting what the package
indicated to the consumer about the product. Communication was further coded
into “labeling” and “communication” categories. Statements that had to do with
the package labeling or any sort of contents that might appear on the label or on
the package itself were defined as labeling. According to the USFDA, under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic act, a food product’s label must include
nutritional information, ingredients, manufacturer information, identity, nutrient
content claims, and serving size (CF R 2004). Statements from the focus groups
pertaining to these items, graphics, or the like fell into the “labeling” category,
(e.g. “And have a cherry, and a heart next to it.'). Statements pertaining to the
size, shape, type of packaging or transparency fell into the “communication”
category (e.g. I would want it to be clear, to see the color of the juice”).
iv. Utility

Utility broadly encompassed the use of a package. This was broken down
further into use of the package, storage, and end use. “Use of the package”
included statements that had to do with features aiding pouring, opening or
closing (e.g. for the plastic bottle this category would include the statement “you
can reclose them”). Statements pertaining to the later use of the product were
included in the storage category (”I think it [carton] goes easily in an out, goes
into grocery bags well plastic or paper”). And finally, the subcategory, end use,
dealt with the package after consumption of the product. Statements indicating

advantages or disadvantages with regard to disposal, recycling, or reuse fell into

42

 

 

this category (“I don’t think this is cardboard I think this is paperboard- it’s not
recycleable").
v. Other

“Other” was a collection of statements that could not be sorted into any of
the previous categories. Typically these statements included thoughts unrelated
to packaging. Coders were instructed to use this category sparingly.

Coders used tables to organize the thought units into a form that could be
effectively quantified. A separate table was done for each of the three groups of
interest (mothers with children, adults 24—29 and adults 41-51). (Please see
Table 1, which includes statements from all three groups to illustrate the different

types of thought units).

43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3358 35E
35 33:35. 3:3 03 wEoE 35 26:
30 3E muEEQ .= *0 33323 35 3x: _. ONF-_m>-EE00 333_m>
so 839 383$
35533 E._ 5355 333 :30 _ 333.0. mp T>35-EE00 _m_0030_._0>3n_ .335 93 30533235
235.333 3003 m 32.. <op-3c3u_-EEoo 3:050:35 3332333...“ ._0 333:3 3330.033
. .9533. 60590033
a 0:590 EC; 05 mx: _ a Oml_m>rnm.d m03m> .mEEEQ we mcme >2
5. c. >=m333 .mctaomSEmE
3333 Eco 3>mc :36 3. 3333303 w. .: . mm->mn_-n_m._ _m.oomo:o>35 3cm .>5_cm3c
. . . . ._ . >=_m3_u .E3Eoo
*0 cosmoEE3E
a3:32.60 £03 .332 35 .55 on _ Sm. 50:35-33 3:050:35 95333.. .8 :0530E3EE00
3-_a>-9n_ acaa> 832
scans 3:328 35 5; 39:8
3335333380 .0 3:3ch >:m E05 E3E:0.__>c3
.3ocmam3aam _000 m 33... 333.0,. m->3n_-o5 _m_0030:3>wn_ .3593 50 8503505 m3E=3E03 3cm
3383333380 33 333 3:. 23:3 33:33. .2 35:33:00
35.53833 2 3333233. gem. 30:35-05 6:050:35 35 .0 85323335 .5 ucmv 55090.5
__E3._3_..EU
3553Eom ._m_0333 3.0:. 3_ 333.0. m-_m>-E00 333_m>
3323333380
E 306 2 >35. 333. 3:50 =mE3 <. N->3n_-Eoo _m_003o_._0>3n_
.33: 35 .8 3E: mE53E03 >33 3305333350 8me 503$ 333 3:3 cozmtoamcmb
9 3>mz 33 333E: 3355533 .3393. _. 0:353:00 6:050:35 655:3: not EeEEmEoO
E3E3§w >.m_aE3xm 3300 b03930 Emucoo3w b03930 =mL3>O

.85 3580 ”e 333

44

 

13532. 3:33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__.:s . 3.5.33: 53333 335:3:3 E3 _ 5... 3N-.3>.:3:.O 333_3>
333:33333coo
23:33 :3..3>>3I 3>o. . 533-25 33 _ 33.333335 .3.3owo:3>33
:5. 35335
9 5:32. :55 . 3:3. 53:5 :9 3.33. :55 . 3383333353 .333.>93 335333533 35
3:93 3.5 35 33 _ 3::5 5x3: 3:5 5335 5.. NN-3:3H.-:3.5O .3:353:3u. 9:. 55 53: 3.3 53.5 3.:3EEoov :3350
o Fm-.3>.3:m 333.3>
333:33333:33
mo~->3n_-3:w .3.3omo:3>3n.
333:3333383 333 F
3.333.969 35. __ <m—-3:3u.-3:m .3:053:3u. 333 3cm. 303333 3:283:35
:85 .3 =3 5. x:.:3 5.:33 33?. Oww-_3>-:9m 333.3> :35 5.3.55 2.3.33333
333:33333:33 3:3 .3>3:33 :. 3:39
..5:35:03::. 3:3 3.33.3333m.= mt->3n.-:2m .3.333o:3>3n. 3:3 33 :333 3935335
mmocoscwwcoo 95:03 new 0330:
38 >2 E :39... 3. 9.53503 33., $785.53 38535“. 3335.3 :o 333 888 .3333
13:35:33 .3x3335..3E .333 v6 :5
3:. Q... _ 333833 33:3 .9... __. 33232333 3323> 5533.333 :93283
=3.5:33353 333:33333:oo 353233: 65:38 5o
>E 53 5:35 :. 33.533 53:35.. m3->33-333 .3.333o:3>3n_ 3333 3:.33.3:. .3533393
53 333 3:3 3:.3:333.3
=>_.35.:. .933... 3. 333:33333:33 533393 3.35.335 3.332. 33.33
5. 5. 33:33 33x3E 3.3:3: 3 3333 r 3393:3333... 3:353:33 53 333 33:3E:o:33 :3 V >555:

 

 

 

 

 

332583 e 2333

 

45

vi. Means End Chain

Each of the five categories were further broken down by the construCts of
the means-end chain. Again, the means end chain suggests that attributes
suggest functional and psychosocial consequences to consumers, which
ultimately lead them to values or end goals of being. Therefore, each category
was further coded into functional consequences, psychosocial consequences
and values. Statements pertaining to the function of the package like “it’s
convenient,” or “it’s easy to use” demonstrate functional consequences, while
statements pertaining to the image, or how a person would feel about a package
while using it are psychosocial consequences. The statements: “The aluminum
bottle is trendy; I’d look stylish in front of my student’s,” is an example of
psychosocial consequences. Finally, the values category included statements
that indicated the participants would reach their personal values or could not

further explain a reason for their reaction (e.g. “I don’t know, I just like it”).

46

lll. Long table approach

Using the abridged transcripts for each focus group session, analysis was
performed by the long table approach. The long table approach is a method of
cutting the transcripts and grouping the quotes into categories under each
research question. “It is a time—tested method," (Krueger and Casey 2000) and
enables the data to be grouped by mtegories and themes.

First, two copies of each transcript were printed. One copy was uwd as a
reference and the other was used for analysis. Each transcript was color coded
with markers by running a solid colored line down the left hand margin of each
page. One line was used for the first focus group of each respective
demographic, and two lines were used for the second. The mothers with children
were coded in yellow, the 41-51 year olds were coded in green, and the 24-29
year olds were coded in pink. Each research question asked during the focus
groups was written on the t0p of individual pieces of newsprint. Beginning with
the warm up quastion, which was about packaging in general, a researcher
reviewed each abridged transcript and cut apart the quotes that answered the
question and grouped them on the respective newsprint paper. For example, a
question asked participants, “Do you notice packaging when you are shopping?
Do you ever think about packaging when you are buying something? Do you
ever buy anything just because of the package?” If answers to these questions
were provided they were placed under the question. If the answers provided did
not answer the question or were off topic, they were set aside for later analysis.

The researcher confinued through all of the research questions asked and

all of the transcripts, grouping similar ideas together. For example, if several

47

people mentioned they bought uniquely shaped glass bottles when they went
shopping, those ideas would be grouped together. After all quotes from the
transcripts were properly categorized, the researcher created a descriptive
summary for each question. Themes that were consistent within a group were
noted as well as themes that were consistent across each group. Ideas that were
different between each group or that only one group mentioned were also noted.
Based on the results of the discussion, a Means End Chain was created for

cherry juice.

48

Figure 14: Procedure for the Long Table Approach

        

 
  
 

Step 2: Research
questions laid out

Step 1: Transcripts are
color coded by focus
group

   

Step 3: Transcripts cut apart Step 4: Similar quotes
grouped under appropriate

research question

Step 5: Descriptive summaries created

49

Chapter 5 - Results

The results for this study are presented in three different ways. First, the
package rank ordering results are presented and packages that were the best
and least liked are highlighted. Second, the thought unit analysis results are
presented and categories receiving the largest number of comments are
highlighted. Finally, the themes and common ideas from the focus group
discussion are mentioned.

I. Package rank order

Table 5 shows the mode of the rank order of packages as an initial part of
the discussion of packaging. The glass bottle was selected most commonly as
the best liked package in the first round of rank ordering. The PET bottle ranked
second best liked package, earning a ranking of 2.00. Amongst the packages,
the flexible pouch was selected most commonly as the least liked package and
had a ranking most often of 7.00. Table 6 shows the mode for the rank order of
packages after discussion of cherry juice. Again, the glass earned the best liked
ranking (1.00) for cherry juice and the PET bottle was most commonly ranked
second. The flexible pouch was ranked most commonly as the least liked

package for cherry juice.

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33..“ 33.3 33..” 8.3 33. v 33.... oo. 5 333.21
33..“ 33.3 33.3 8.3 33. V 33.3 33. 5 :3.33.21
.3 .v 3 3 v 3 .3 3533.51
mm mm 33 mm mm mm mm 3..3> 2
3.53m :3330 3.33m
3.533 ...m.n. E3:.E3_< 3.53m mac... x333 3.3.5 33 ... 3.330 33333 3.338.“.
3:38.333 33.3.;3333 53 :o.33333.3 3 33 3mumxcm 53 :33:3 3.:3m no 3.33 .F
33.." 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.... oo. . 333.2
33..” 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 8... 33..“ :3.335_
N N N N N a a 3533.5.
mm mm mm mm mm wk. mm 3..3> 2
3.53m :3330 3.53m
3.33m .53 E3:.E3_< 3.53m M30: x333 3.35m 33... 3.330 33333 3.338.... 333.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.333335 .6 :33 .35.:. :3 33 3333333 53 :393 3.:3m. ”m 3.33 .r

51

33333 33333 3.33.. 3w3x333 3.35 E32 8: 3.3 33.83.33.333 33... N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 F3 F3 F3 F3 F3 F3 .338
.V .V .V .v v v 3 9.33.3.1
3 3 a 3 . 3 33 3 39.: .333-
. 3 3 t .V 3 F 3 33....
a F . F . 3 3 9 F 8....
3 3 3. .V t F .V 33...

F . 3 C 3 3 3 a 33..”

o." 3 3 F 3 F 3. 33...

N . .. F 3 F F 3.” 39.... .33..

3.32. 3.32. 8:33 683
3.333 F33 52.532 333: .333 3.3.3 33F 3.333 3.3.3.3.“. 333.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33

AF E 335333: 3.3.3333

.3533 m— 3353 3 3:33.“. 3:59.333 33.3.. >338 Fe 5.333335 3:. :333 3333.333 3 :33:3 3.:3: Fe 323339". .3 3.33 ...

 

3335333: 3.3.3333 .353: v 3353 a 3:33.... 39333338 .35.:. 95 Fe :33 33 0333.333 :3 :393 3.33: .6 35333:". K 3.

52

Tables 7 and 8 give the number of participants who ranked each package
at each point on me rank order scale. Glass was ranked the highest by most
participants both at the beginning and the end of the focus groups. Sixteen
participants liked glass the best during initial discussions and 30 participants liked
it best after cherry juice was indicated as the product inside. That was almost a
doubling of the participants who ranked they liked it the best.

The flexible pouch and the brick pack both fell in rank order when the initial
results and final results are compared. During the initial discussions, 20
participants ranked the pouch as the package that they liked the least, while 13
participants ranked the brick pack last. At the conclusion of the focus groups, the
flexible pouch number increased to 25 as the package least liked, while the brick
pack stayed consistent at 13.

Using SPSS tabulated data, a crosstab function was performed of the rank
ordering of the packages at initial discussion and after the discussion of cherry
juice. Several shifts in consumer ranking were indicated when comparing the
results of the packages before and after they were indicated to have cherry juice
in them. These shifts give some important insight into consumer perception of a
package when a product context. They suggest that when the product is
specified, consumer thoughts and feelings regarding the package change. This
was noticed with the shifts in rank order of the packaging that occurred. The
participants had opinions about the packages in general, but when the scope was
narrowed to those packages containing cheny juice, their perceptions changed.

This is consistent with the concepts of congruence noted by Raudenbush (et al.

53

2002) mentioned previously. Thus, it can be said that different package types do
have an effect on consumer’s perceptions of juice and cherry juice.

Table 9- Significant Shifts in Rankings as indicated by Cross-tabs, chi-squared
analysis usi SPSS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Package X2 Sigma Significant Direction of
Shift? Shift

Glass 35.816 0.057 marginal Up

Flexible 70.095 0.000 Highly Down

Pouch simificant

Gable-Topped 33.841 0.527 No

Carton

Brick Pack 25.762 0.687 No

HDPE bottle 52.960 0.034 Yes Down

Aluminum 58.365 0.01 1 Highly Down

Bottle Significant

PET Bottle 20.7846 0.979 No

 

 

 

 

 

Significant shifts (s 0.05) are indicated in bold
i. Glass
Although the chi -square indicates a mildly significant change (x2: 35.816,
sigma= 0.57). The crosstab data indicated that 15 consumers ranked the
package the best liked (1.00) before product indication and 30 consumer ranked
the packaged best liked (1.00) after product indiwtion. An upward shift was
observed along the ranking scale as 13 participants ranked glass a 2.00 on the
scale before product indication, and 15 after product indication. In addition,
before product indication, five participants ranked glass a 6.00 and seven ranked
it a 7.00 or liked it the least. After product indication, zero participants ranked the
glass bottle in either of these categories.
ii. Flexible pouch
The findings of the crosstabs for the flexible pouch were significant (x2:
70.095, sigma= 0.00). A downward shift was observed. Two participants ranked

the pouch best liked (1.00) before product indication, but ranked it least liked

54

 

(7.00) after indication. A total of 18 participants ranked the flexible pouch least
liked (7.00) before product indication which increased to a total of 25 participants
after product indiwtion. This increase in the flexible pouch as the least liked
package (7.00) was observed from participant’s rankings across the board.
iii. Gabletop carton

Cross tabs for the gable top carton did not indicate a significant shift
(x2=33.841, sigma= 0.527) in package rankings, however some observations
were made. Throughout the scale, the gable top carton shifted upward. Before
product indimtion, 12 participants ranked the package a 4.00 and after product
indication, five ranked it a 3.00 or higher, with three participants staying
consistent at a 4.00. Before product indication, 9 participants ranked the flexible
pouch a 5.00 and after product indication, 7 participants ranked the package a
4.00 or higher. In addition, the best liked category increase from 5 participants to
7, after product indication.

iv. Brick Pack

The crosstabluation of the data for the brick pack before and after showed
no significant difference (x2= 25.762, sigma= 0.687). However, some
observations were made from the data. Before product indication, four
participants indicated they liked the brick pack the best, and after product
indimtion, zero participants indicated they liked it the best. Twelve participants
ranked the package a 6.00 on the scale before product indication, which
increased to 17 after product indication. Because the number of participants was

consistent for ranking the brick pack the least liked package (n=13, n=13), it can

55

be assumed the increase in rankings of 6.00 were from participants who had
previously ranked it more positively on the scale.
v. High Density Polyethylene Bottle

The crosstabs for the HDPE jug indicate a significant downward shift (x2=
52.960, sigma= 0.034) in the participants rankings from before product indication
to after product indication. Six participants liked the HDPE jug best before
product indication, and one liked it best after indication. The other five
participants shifted to rank the package as 2.00 (1 person), 5.00 (2 people), and
6.00 (3 people). Five people shifted from ranking the package a 2.00 to a 3.00
after product indication. Three people all ranked the HDPE jug a 6.00 after
product indication, when before they ranked it at 3.00 (1 person), 4.00 (1 person),
and 5.00 (1 person). The rest of the data stayed fairly consistent.
vi. Aluminum Bottle

The cross tabs for the aluminum bottle indicate a significant downward
shift (x2: 58.365, sigma= 0.011) in the participants rankings before product
indication to after product indication. Nine participants indicate they liked the
aluminum bottle the best before product indication and 2 indicated they liked it
the best after product indication. Comparing before and after discussion of
cheny juice, five people shifted their rank of the package to 4.00 or lower. Before
product indication, five people ranked the aluminum bottle a 5.00 and after
indication, the number of participants increased to 11. This increase was
observed from at least five participants ranking the package lower. Six
participants ranked the aluminum bottle a 6.00 before product indication, and 9

ranked it a 6.00 after indication. At least seven people shifted their rank of the

56

aluminum bottle after it was indicated to have cherry juice in it from a higher rank
to a 6.00.
vii. Polyethylene Terephthalate Bottle

The cross tabs do not indicate a significant shift of the consumer rankings
before product indication to after product indication (x2: 20.7846, sigma= 0.979).
However, some observations were made. Before product indication, 13
participants ranked the PET bottle a 2.00 and after product indication, 20 ranked
the package a 2.00. In addition, 12 participants ranked the PET as the one they
liked best after product indication as compared to 11 before product indication.
Participants who ranked the bottle a 4.00 before product indication (4 people),
shifted their ranking to 2.00 and 3.00 after product indication. Six people who
ranked the package a 5.00 shifted their rankings to best liked (1.00), 2.00, and
3.00 after product indication, and one person who ranked the packaged least
liked before product indication, ranked it a 2.00, after indication.

ll. Packaging Rank Order by Demographic Group

Additionally, the rankings were broken down by demographic group.

Table 7 and 8 give the findings of the preferred package before and after the

facilitator initiated discussion of cherry juice.

57

Table 10: Frequency of best liked package as part of initial 3discussion by
demographic group -Figure 8 step 13 (total possible responses- 573 )

 

 

 

 

Glass Flexible Gable Brick HDPE Aluminu PET
Pouch Top Pack Bottle m Bottle Bottle
Before Carton
41-51 7 1 2 0 3 4 3
24-29 7 1 2 0 1 2 3
Moms 2 1 1 4 2 3 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Package with the greatest frequency of respondents are presented in bold

Table 8: Frequency of best liked package after the discussion of juice packaging,
with a final emphasis on cherry juice- Figure 8 step 13 (total possible responses-
55 )

 

 

 

 

Glass Flexible Gable Brick HDPE Aluminum PET
Pouch Top Pack Bottle Bottle Bottle
After Carton
41-51 15 0 1 0 0 1 1
24-29 7 0 5 0 1 0 3
Moms 8 1 1 0 0 1 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Padragewiflrmegreatestfrequencyofrespondentsarepresentedin bold

Table 7 shows both 41-51 year olds and 24-29 year olds preferred glass
bottles during the initial discussion which was based on packaging in general.
During this same point in the discussion, the focus groups consisting of mothers
liked the PET bottle the best, with six participants ranking it the best liked (see
Table 7).

After discussion focused on cheny juice (see Table 8), glass remained as
the preferred package for the 41-51 year olds, with 15 participants ranking it best
(1.00). The 24-29 year olds stayed consistent with 7 participants giving it a 1.00,

again making it the package they liked the best. Six more participants within the

 

3 Two participants did not return their rank order sheets
‘ Two participants did not return their rank order sheets and two sets of responses were thrown out because
the participants did not respond according to the correct procedure.

58

mothers with children demographic group selected the glass bottle as the
package they liked the best, increasing their number to 8.

However, eight participants from the mothers with children also selected
the PET bottle as the package they liked the best. As such, the glass bottle and
PET bottle both ranked favorably when rated by mothers, while the glass bottle
was the best liked by the 41-51 year olds and the 24-29 year olds. Significant
difference existed between demographic groups at the initial discussion of
packaging for the brick pack (x2=7.958, sigma=.019) for which package the
participants liked the best Significant differences existed between demographic
groups for the glass bottle (x2=7.938, sigma=.019), the gable top carton
(x2=6.509, sigma=.039), and the PET bottle (x2=7.248, sigma = .027) after

discussion of cherry juice.

59

III. Results of Coding

The following table summarizes results of the coding of thought units.
Table 9 represents all comments and their respective categories. One thousand
eight-hundred and ninety nine thought units were coded into twenty four different
categories. The four package functions were the major categories, which were
broken down into sub categories using attributes of those functions and the
constructs of the Means End Chain. Labeling within the communication category
obtained the most thought units, and the communication category obtained the

most thought units overall.

60

 

9.3.3. E5 29.9: H: 2%»

61

 

82:80 ”2 2%»

62

The distribution of thought units across all the focus groups was fairly
even. Across all the focus groups, the participants made the most comments in
the category of communication, with an emphasis on labeling. Thought units in
regard to communication accounted for over half of the units recorded (see
Table10). The psychosocial consequences and values for labeling were the
categories that received the largest number of thought units at 283 and 257
respectively.

Table 12- Significant differences between demographic groups in thought units
as indicated by Cross-tabs, chi-squared analysis using SPSS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Function Secondary X2 Sigma Significant
Category Difference
Containment - 1 1.937 0.003 Yes
Protection - 14.350 0.001 Yes
Communication Transparency, 1.863 0.394 No
Size, Etc.
Labeling 1 1.917 0.003 Yes
Utility Use 43.616 0.000 Yes
Storage 12.379 0.002 Yes
End Use 19.504 0.000 Yes
i. Containment

Units coded for containment accounted for 6.64% (n=126) of the total
thought units, with 41-51 year olds accounting for 26.9% (n=34), 24-29 year olds
accounting for 50.8% (n=64), and mothers accounting for 22.2% (n=28) of the
units. The chi square analysis showed there was a significant difference among
the distribution of thought units over the demographic groups (x2=11.937,
sigma=0.003)

63

 

ii. Protection

The thought units coded for the protection function accounted for 4.53%
(n=86) of the total thought units in this project. The 41-51 year olds accounted for
46.5% (n=40) of the thought units coded and the 24—29 year olds accounted for
39.5% (n=34) of the thought units. The mothers with children seemed to be less
concerned with the protection function than the other demographic groups as
they accounted for 13.9% (n=12) of the thought units. Chi square analysis
indicates there was a significant difference between the demographic groups of
the distribution of thought units «2:14.350, sigma=0.001)

iii. Communication

The communication function overall accounted for the most thought units
at 53.2% (n=1011). This means that over half of the units coded for fell into this
category.

a. Transparency, Size, etc.

This sub category accounted for 19.8% (n=376) of the total thought units
coded. Under this subcategory, the demographic groups were distributed fairly
evenly in their thought units. The 41-51 year olds accounted for 29.5% (n=111)
of the thought units, the 24-29 year olds accounted for 37.2% (n=140), and the
mothers accounted for 34.3% (n=125) of the thought units. Chi square analysis
indicates there was no significant difference in the distribution of thought units
over the demographic groups (x2=1.863, sigma=0.394).

b. Labeling

This sub-category accounted for 33.4% (n=635) of the total thought units

coded in this study. The thought units were again distributed fairfy evenly across

64

the demographic groups. The 41-51 year olds accounted for 37.8% (n=238) of
the thought units, the 24-29 year olds accounted for 33.4% (n=212) and the
mothers accounted for 29.5% (n=185) of the thought units. Chi square analysis
among these groups indicate there was a significant difference in the distribution
of thought units (xz=11.917, sigma=0.003).
iv. Utility

a. Use

Thought units for the utility category mostly fell into this subcategory. Use
accounted for 76.1% (n=401) of the thought units coded for utility. The 41-51
year olds accounted for 22.9% (n=92) of the thought units, the 24-29 year olds
accounted for 32.9% (n=132) of the thought units, and the mothers accounted for
44.1% (n=177) of the thought units. Chi-square analysis indicated there was
significant difference with the distribution of thought units among the
demographic groups (x2=43.616, sigma=0.000)

b. Storage

The distribution across demographic groups was not even for this
category. 41-51 year olds accounted for 24% (n=11) of the thought units, 24-29
year olds accounted for over half the thought units at 60% (n=27), and mothers
with children accounted for 15.6% (n=7). The chi square analysis indicated there
was again a signifimnt difference among the demographic groups with the
distribution of thought units (x2=12-379. sigma=0.002).

c. End Use

The distribution across the demographic groups was fairly even for this

sub-category. The 41-51 year olds accounted for 54.3% (n=44) of the thought

65

units, the 24-29 year olds accounted for 21% (n=17), and the mothers accounted
for 24.7% (n=20) of the thought units. Chi square analysis indicates there was a
signifimnt difference between the distribution of thought units across the
demographic groups (x2=19.504, sigma=0.000).

v. Other

The other category only accounted for 7.8% of the total thought units
coded for this study. The distribution across the demographic groups was
distributed unevenly. The 41-51 year olds accounted for 28.9% (n=43) of the
thought units, the 24—29 year olds accounted for 47% (n=70) of the thought units,
and the mothers accounted for 24.2% (n=36) of the thought units. Chi square
analysis indicates that there was a significant difference among the demographic
groups of the distribution of thought units (x2=7.776, sigma=.020)

Observations of the distribution of thought units indicate communication
and utility were the two most talked about categories. Labeling appeared to be
the most talked about overall; however this was the case in all of the
demographic groups. The 41-51 year olds tended to have more thought units
regarding protection, labeling, and end use. 24-29 year olds tended to have more
thought units in regard to containment, transparency, size, etc., storage, and the

other categories. The mothers had the most thought units in regard to use

66

lV. Focus group Discussion Findings

Through attributes, the package can convey different messages to the
consumer about the package and the product itself. Several themes developed
throughout the course of each focus group and some of these themes varied by
group (See appendix F for organized table).

i. Containment

Generally, the glass bottle was thought as capable of containing the
product through almost all situations, but some participants concerns focused on
the sturdiness of the package. Many consumers mentioned that glass is
breakable and depending on the situation of use, they may consider an
alternative package. Plastic many times was mentioned as durable. Participants
were not afraid the PET bottle or HDPE bottle would leak or break. The
aluminum bottle was also characterized as durable, and several of the 41-51 year
olds mentioned that it was sturdy and could be used in situations like going to the
gym, camping, or hiking.

The gable top carton was mentioned by some of the participants to not
adequately contain the product in certain cases. They felt it was not durable and,
therefore, not a very good package. ‘It can get broken in the back of the cal’ and
“it could get punctured,” were statements heard. Some participants thought the
package could easily be damaged enabling the product to leak out.

The flexible pouch and the brick pack were two packages that many of the
participants felt were inferior with regard to product containment. Many of the

participants stated these packages leaked, and could easily be pierced. A

67

characteristic quote of this issue indicates, ‘... they [pouch] get punctured, and
they’ll leak out.”
ii. Protection

Participants were interested in a product that was fresh and disliked that
interacted with the product. Taste of the product was a key attribute in
determining whether the package had migrated into the product or any
compounds of the product had sorbed out. Participants indicated the glass bottle
to be an ideal candidate to protect the product from the environment and that the
package was not likely to affect the product. Many of the consumers voiced that
glass was pure, clean, and would not interact with product Characteristic
quotations from focus groups included, “Things taste better out of glass,” and
“I’ve never had a bad bottle of juice in glass.”

Some of the other packages were thought to not protect the product as
well. Most of the consumers seemed to believe that things packaged in plastic
tasted like the plastic itself. It was suggested that plastic commonly “transfers”
into the product and leaves a residue which results in a plastic-like taste. Off-
flavor was a theme in the discussion about gable topped cartons, as well. This
idea generated negative perceptions about products that tested more like the
package than the product being consumed.

Several participants from the focus group that consisted of mothers also
tended to see gable-topped cartons as packages that could puncture easily or
break. The flexible pouch and brick pack were also thought to be the worst at
protecting the product. Participants mentioned the pouches were easily

“squished” and the brick packs got soggy when exposed to moisture.

68

Participants expressed concerns regarding the protective attributes of the
aluminum bottle, indicating that due to the material, the temperature of the
package and product could change rapidly. They suggested that this may lead to
fluctuations in and out of the ideal temperature range, possibly damaging the
product. Aluminum was also thought to leach into the product during these
temperature changes by some of the mothers with children.

iii. Communication

Different types of packaging seemed to communicate a huge amount to
the consumers. A large number of comments fell into this category and this is
consistent with the approach used for data coding.

a. Transparency, Shape, and other features

One dominant theme across all the focus groups was the need for
transparency of the packaging. Participants were very interested in seeing what
the product looked like. Participants indicated that if they could see the product
for themselves, they had a better understanding of the type of product that they
were getting. They wanted to judge the color, the consistency, and condition of
the product before purchasing it, especially if it was a juice that they had not
purchased previously.

This translates into how they may feel buying that product and has the
potential to predict how content they will be with their decision to purchase. As
the only two transparent packages presented in this study, the glass bottle and
PET bottle were mentioned frequently as best in aiding the consumers to connect

with and judge the product itself and not just the package.

69

The importance of the idea of transparency became even stronger after
the consumers were asked about packaging for cherry juice. Statements such
as, 'You want to see what it looks like,” and “I would want it to be clear, to see the
color of the juice” were characteristic of all groups as the discussion of packaging
for cherry juice. In general, participants wanted to see a new product or
something they were unfamiliar with before purchasing it. “If it’s something I’ve
never bought before I want to see it before I buy it.”

Each package type and shape appeared to communicate different things
to the participants. Frequent words triggered by the glass bottle were “healthy,”
“natural,” “quality,” and “expensive.” Many participants mentioned products that
were healthy typimlly came in glass, and that it was a “natural package.” While
many of the participants saw glass as higher quality, they also believed that it
was more expensive. Most translated that to mean that it contained a higher
quality product, which some were willing to pay more for, while others were not.

Some of the participants viewed the PET bottle more positively because of
its structure and the embossing on the bottle. Some consumers mentioned that
more time and money spent on the package for a product indicated a better
product. “i like the way it looks, and the design, its aesthetically pleasing,” was a
characteristic quote of the plastic bottle.

Several participants made comments about the gable top carton as “THE
juice package.” It was characterized by some participants as, ”the thing that
morning stuff comes in.” Many of the 24-29 year olds felt the gable topped carton
was a typical package for juice, indicating that they expected there to be

something healthy inside. “The box seems natural, like I’d be having a teaspoon

70

of it every morning,” was a quote made to support this idea. Mothers with
children, like the 24-29 year old participants, indicated the gable-topped carton to
be a typical juice package.

The HDPE bottle drew some interesting comments in regard to its shape.
Several people identified it as a milk package, which was both positive and
negative. One participant commented, “The 50s... it reminds me of how the
moms go and change the milk bottles,” which brought a connection with the past
and a feeling of nostalgia. However, another participant connected it with a
current milk package, and a product with which she had had negative
experiences.

Judging from the comments made and the rankings it received from the
participants (see Tables 5 and 6), aluminum was the least liked bottle. Several
comments were made about its lack of transparency and how it appeared to look
like a package for Stemo, or for cleaning products. The comment “aluminum is
the last thing that healthy things come in,” was supported by several participants
in one group of 24-29 year olds and echoed across all the other groups.
However, the bottle did earn some positive feedback with the suggestion that it
was a new and interesting package that might be ideal for a new product.
Mothers with children seemed to think their children might respond more
positively to it than the other packages. They mentioned the shininess and “cool”
look of the bottle would catch their child’s attention and they might want to try it.
“They’d like it because its cold and you can’t see what’s in it. It’s cool,” were

quotes that supported this idea.

71

The brick pack and the flexible pouch earned the least positive responses
from participants of all focus groups. It was mentioned in EVERY focus group
session that the brick pack signified “kids,” or products that were composed
primarily of sugar and water. One participant passionately mentioned the brick
pack, ‘Makes me feel like a little kid in a bad way, I’m an adult now, I don’t drink
out of this!” Another stated that, “It makes you look five.” The negative response
to the brick pack increased when the consumers were asked to think about the
best way to package cherry juice.

The pouch evoked a different set of responses. Among them were ”space
age,” “robotic food,” and unhealthy, and “[it] looks like something you’d hook up to
an IV.” Although the mothers with children tended to be less harsh than the other
two groups, overall, the participants indicated they did not see the pouch as a
juice package.

Overall comments regarding the ways that a package can convey health
included: keeping it simple, but also, if it looked like more money and time was
spent in creating a package, the product was probably of higher quality and
healthy. Many of the participants, especially the 41-51 year olds, said that if a
package was too trendy or flashy, that would indicate an unhealthy product to
them.

b. Labeling

Although all packages presented to participants were unlabeled,
participants were asked what a label could do to indicate a healthy product to a
consumer. Since the label is ultimately part of the package, it was discussed as

an avenue to send a message to consumers.

72

1. Labeling in general

Some common themes among the participants included the need for a
natural looking label that was simple, with clearly stated nutritional facts that were
convenient to read and identify. Across the focus groups, the color pallet of the
label was suggested to be in natural colors with fresh looking graphics. The word
“organic” also seemed to indicate to the participants a healthy product.

The mothers with children and 24—29 year olds seemed more interested in
putting fun facts about health on the label that might teach the consumer about
the product. However, crazy colors and busy graphics were not thought to
indicate a healthy product. “If I see fire crackers and stars and hearts - I don’t
want to feel like that on the inside.”

2. Labeling for cheny juice

Once the packages were indicated to have cherry juice as the product,
(Figure 4, step number 12) consumers were asked again about what labeling
could do to promote a healthy message. During the focus groups, the words
“antioxidant,” and “heart healthy,” were mentioned. The participants indicated
those words should be clearly stated on the package in large letters. In each of
the groups, it was suggested a heart be present on the package, and that any
health claims of the product should be certified or backed up by a credible
source. Participants from all of the groups indicated they did not want gimmicky,
flashy, or child like labels for the product. It was also mentioned by participants
from all of the groups, even the 24-29 year olds, the labels need to be clear and
easy to read. Several participants from all of the groups made comments about

difficulty reading the fine print on many of current labels.

73

iv. Utility

The different types of packaging were also discussed in depth by means of
their performance, features for using the product, and the package itself as part of
the product. Again, a large number of comments fell into this category and are
discussed according to the way they were broken down for coding.

a. Use of the Product

Across all the groups, “easy to use” was mentioned frequently.
Participants liked packages that were easy for them to handle, carry, use to
dispense product, open, and reclose. Difficult packaging in general received a
negative response. Of the packages presented, most of the participants across
the focus groups liked the brick pack the least They were considered difficult to
open, the straw got lost or breaks, they squirted everywhere, were messy, or
there was always a little bit of product left over in the package.

Some participants found the gable-topped carton to be considered difficult
to open, “The ones that have a little white thing to pull out the ring, my kids can’t
get them out.” The cartons were also seen by some of the participants in each of
the groups as spillable, not good for on the go, inconvenient, not durable, and
sometimes difficult to use. They did however, think the product was easily
dispensed, and the package fit nicely in the refrigerator.

Although not present in this group of packages, the larger plastic jugs with
handles were mentioned across all of the groups. The participants liked these
packages because they were easy to carry, and the handle aided in dispensing of
the product. Most participants indicated liking the package because it was a

large quantity and easy to use.

74

The PET bottle was also liked for its indentations because most of the
participants felt it was easy to hold. Its compactness and lightweight were
commented on as, again, making it easy to use. The weight of the HDPE bottle
and aluminum bottle were also mentioned as light. However, they were
mentioned to be slippery and not as easy to use in all of the focus groups.

b. Storage

If the product was not to be consumed in one use, it needs to be stored for
later. Most commonly, the gable top carton was mentioned as easy to stored in
the refrigerator. The reclosable pour spout made it easy for participants to seal it
and save for later. The aluminum bottle, glass bottle, and PET bottles were also
indicated as packages that could easily be reclosed and the product could be
saved.

The glass bottle, however, was not considered something that would travel
well in a back pack or sit in the refrigerator at work, and not necessaiily
something participants wanted to carry with them. They worried about dropping
or breaking it. The PET bottle and aluminum were seen much more favorably in
this light, because they were durable and would not crack.

The flexible pouch and brick pack were viewed as to be light and easy to
carry in a backpack or lunch box. For hiking they were considered lightweight,
and in school lunches they can lay flat and fit easily into a box or bag. However,
participants in the 24-29 year old group worried about the flexible pouch being
punctured if it was thrown in their backpack. The key problem that consumers
saw with these packages was that they were not made for storage and there is

not a good way to reseal them and keep the product for later.

75

c. End use

In every focus group, recycling or recyclable packaging was mentioned
frequently. Participants seemed to link recyclable packaging and healthy
products. In the participants minds eco-friendly indicated “good for earth” and
good for them. Across all the groups, the participants seemed concerned with
environmental friendliness of packaging. Glass was seen as the most recyclable
package. Although participants indicated they looked for the recycling symbols on
plastic containers, it seemed as though they sometimes had difficulty recycling
plastic.

In addition to recycling, participants were interested in packages they
could reuse. The aluminum bottle was mentioned several times as a re useable
container, as was the PET bottle. However, some health concerns arose with the
PET bottle, because participants were worried about the plastic migrating into the
product To a lesser extent they expressed the same concern regarding the
aluminum bottle. “You’re not supposed to store stuff in aluminum, its toxic,” was a
comment made by one 24-29 year old.

Comments about the inability to recycle the brick pack and flexible pouch
were made by a few participants. The brick pack was thought to be a lot of
packaging for the product and the pouch was, “something that has to be thrown
away and you pay for it.” Although the gable top carton was also not recyclable,
some of the participants mentioned that it was renewable energy which made

them like it more than the brick or pouch.

76

V. Means End Chain For Cherry Juice

Compiling the attributes discussed that participants would look for in a
package for cherry juice with nutraceutical benefits, a means end chain was
developed from the focus groups (see figure 7). The attributes in a package most
important to the participants lead them to their ultimate goal of being healthy.
Purchase intentions are likely to be high as a package with these attributes fulfills
the customer’s means-end chain. The means end chain identifies the attributes
most commonly mentioned during the focus groups and connects them with the
functional and psychosocial consequences they obtain from those attributes. The
chain further connects those consequences to the values of the participants

identified in this study.

77

weocmscomcoo
_c.oomo:o>wn.

Loses t ..
.itt Boo n so . S... .8. .

      

>mE:_o mm oE com rec; 9550 ,.

6293:... ..o $83.0 on rec; _.

   
  

8.2..
. .9..sz 95.5.6 9.... com Bacon. .650

“MW / 9:555. ,

‘ .m .0 x5; 5 >539. on :8 _

«I .
“‘ , gem/com >._m.ccEc9.>co Em. ._

4.223; .0... Eu _,.,_
/._>uw2= >§m0£ Q nus _.

3.8.. .8. .,

€959.25
a... stoma... _

      

moo. 9.. .__.s.

223... Es .

£80 0.... 89m -mo:.m>

s.

9.59.0.8 8.3.. 2.9.0 .2 59.0 25 memos. ”me 2:2".

mice; 9 2mm.
23.5 «to; ommxomc,

8.2. 0:528 23mm :8.

a.

3.3.. no.6 ..co>>. 00.....— 2.9.0
. .. .o. 352......” .2605
._ Each. 2 Bow; mom. can mmmxomn. 8...ch
. . . . caesium
‘ BEamcoo on coo 8...... .8332
, .. 602933 on =...> 8.2..- 29830
- Ego :53 8.....- mean. :86

. . 3385.25.81 _

. . :80 a. ham.

80530200 22896
.2285...

039.30....

23.0.63.

2.35..

938.com

353.28 “32295.82

.28 no. acct .30.”.

8.2. >220 .0. £20 cam. mamas.

78

A consumer, who can see the deep rich red color of the cherry juice, as
well as the consistency of the product, leads him or her to believe he or she is
drinking a healthful product. This attribute of transparency has the functional
consequence of enabling a consumer to think he or she is drinking a healthy
product. This leads the consumer to thinking they are leading a healthy lifestyle
and allows him or her to feel healthy; the psychosocial consequence. Finally this
leads the consumer to their and state or goal or being healthy and living a long
time.

Attributes like portability, pourablity, recloseability, grippability, and
durability, have functional consequences of a consumer being able to consume
the juice easily and anywhere, preserving the juice, and not dropping or breaking
the package. These functional consequences create the psychosocial
consequences of the consumer feeling healthy, being able to drink juice at work
or lunchtime where peOple can see them, not feeling clumsy or frustrated when
dealing with the packaging, and feeling like a good mother. Once again, these
consequences lead into the values of the consumer of having confidence, being
healthy, living long and being a good mother.

The recyclability and naturalness of the package create less waste that
might end up in a landfill and make the consumer believe they are drinking a
healthy product. These functional consequences lead into the psychosocial of
preserving the environment, being environmentally sensitive, in addition to feeling
healthy. The values reached from these consequences are preserving the

environment, and again being healthy, and living long.

79

Finally, a clean tasting product that is in an easy to open package were
among the attributes the participants looked for when considering cherry juice.
The clean taste relates to a package that does not interact with the product,
which indicated to the consumer a healthy product and preservation of the juice.
These functional consequences lead to the psychosocial consequences of
feeling healthy, leading a healthy lifestyle, not being wasteful and being
environmentally sensitive. Arriving at the end state or goals of being healthy,
living long, preserving the environment, the consumer reached his or her values
through these attributes. A package that is easy to open leads the consumer to
easy consumption and not feeling clumsy or becoming frustrated while
consuming the juice; the functional and psychosocial consequences of the
attributes. These consequences lead the consumer to their final goals or values

of having confidence.

80

Chapter 6 -Discussion

From the data collected, it was observed that packaging plays an
enormous part in consumer perception of the product. If the package does not
aid the product in meeting the consumers’ unmet needs or fulfill their values (see
Figurel), it is likely the consumer will not purchase it. Features of the package
indicate to a consumer how easy the product will be to use, store, and throw
away. The package aan suggest whether or not the product will taste fresh or if it
has adequately protected the product from the outside environment. It can
suggest if the product has experienced contamination or tampering.

In addition, the package can tell a story about the product itself,
suggesting if the product is of high quality or just “sugar water.” A package can
suggest to a consumer if the product is expensive or economical. Throughout
this study, it bewme apparent consumers need a package that contains and
protects the product, but this package must also be useful to them and
communicate a positive message.

From the discussion in the focus groups, a means end chain was
developed for cherry juice. The attributes mentioned most frequently indicated
consumers wanted a package that was transparent, portable, recyclable,
pourable, grippable, easy to open, inert, durable, and natural. These attributes
led to functional consequences which the participant evaluated to see if the
package would meet their needs. The participant then assessed the
psychosocial consequences, again to see if they would end up at the end state or
goal the consumer was targeting. If the attributes lead all the way to the

consumer’s values, the package was successful and the consumer saw it more

81

positively. These attributes led to the consumer's values of being healthy, living
a long time, preserving the environment, having confidence and being a good
mother.

The main attribute the participants looked for in a package was the ability
to see the color and consistency of a product. Over 73% of the participants
selected a transparent package for cherry juice. Transparency allows the
consumers could judge for themselves the product inside. The consumers feel
like they have all of the information necessary to make a good decision. If the
consumer feels they are getting a deeply colored product with good consistency.
they believe it to be a healthy product which enables them to feel healthy and
lead a healthy lifestyle. in turn, if they are healthy, or others see them as healthy,
they ultimately feel healthy and that they will live longer. Additionally, mothers
Who could see the product and judge for themselves could feel they were giving a
good product to their child. In doing so, they feel they are a good mother, and will
reach the ultimate end state of being a good mother.

In the analysis of thought units, the number of units categorized as
transparency, size, and other features of packaging, accounted for 19.80% (376
units out of 1899) of the total thought units created in this study. This means the
participants frequently mentioned this topic, indicating that these features had a
large impact on their perception of products. The results also show that for every
category, with the exception of Transparency, Size, etc. (x2=1.863, sigma=0.394)
there was a significant difference between the demographic groups in the number
of thought units for the category. This could be due to the fact that it was

frequently talked about and all the participants paid a lot of attention to the

82

 

attributes associated with this function. These results indicate that transparency
may have a huge impact on consumer perception of a product.

The results from the rank order show that glass was the best liked
package before and after discussion of cherry juice. Thirty participants (79%)
selected it as the best liked package after discussion of cheny juice where, 16
had selected it before the discussion of cherry juice. Comments made during the
focus groups support the idea that consumers wanted to see the product they
were getting, particularly if it was something they had not tried previously. The
shift from before discussion to after discussion, although it was marginally
insignificant, (sigma = 0.057) indicates the package has an impact on the
perception of the product.

The preference for transparent packaging may also indicate why the PET
bottle was the second best liked for cheny juice. Twelve of the participants
selected it as the best like package for cherry juice and 20 selected it as the
second best liked (ranking it 2.00). The PET bottle was liked just as much as
glass by the mothers. Tying this back to the means and chain the mothers
wanted a package that would be safe to give to their children. A durable package
that would not break or be potentially harmful for their child had a strong impact
on the mother’s perceptions.

Although the gable top carton was not considered as durable as some of
the other packaging presented, seven participants selected it as the best liked
package for cherry juice, making it the third best liked package. Some
participants indicated they felt the gable top carton could get punctured or could

break easily. But the preference for this package could be explained by its

83

reclosability. This feature enables the consumer to preserve the contents and
save it for later use. Relating this to the means end chain, the consumer would
reach their and value of preserving the environment by not being wasteful. Not
only did it meet these needs but the gable top carton was considered a common
juice package by many of the participants. The perception of the gable top carton
was that something healthy came inside and this is supported by the rank
ordering.

The reclosability of the gable top carton was an attribute associated with
the utility function of packaging. The utility function accounted for 27.76% (527
out of 1899 units) of all the thought units created in this study. Other attributes
included in this category, that the consumers required for a package for cherry
juice, were portability, grippability, ease of Opening, pourability, durability, and
recycle ability of the package. The attributes in this category were the second
most frequently mentioned, indicating consumers rely heavily on these features
to aid them in reaching their means end. Using the means end chain, these
attributes are associated with a consumer being able to use, store, and dispose
of a package easily, without them feeling clumsy or frustrated. Ultimately,
fulfilling these needs, the consumer reaches his or her end state of having
confidence.

The attribute of recycle ability was frequently mentioned, and had a strong
connection with the way consumers perceived a product. “And I would say
recyclable I if it’s healthy for the environment, it is healthy for us,” was one of
many comments connecting a recyclable package with being healthy. The

participants reached their end goals of preserving the environment through

84

packages that were good for the environment, along with feeling like there was a
healthy product inside.

The lack of recyclability created a negative perception about some of the
packages, including the flexible pouch and the tetra brick. These packages were
ranked the least liked for cherry juice with 25 participants selecting the flexible
pouch as their least liked and 13 participants selecting the tetra brick as their
least liked. Also, not a single participant gave the brick pack a ranking of 1.00
(best liked) for the product of cherry juice. Not only the lack of recyclability of
these packages resulted in these low scores, but comments were also made
about the difficulty in using them, lack of reclosability, and general look. “It’s (brick
pack) not resealable, so if I aannot finish it off, It’s very uncomfortable to carry
with you, I don’t like it,” was one of many comments supporting these ideas.

Attributes that fell into the communication category, (53.2% of all thought
units coded) again show an impact on consumer perception of a product. The
brick pack was among the least liked packages due to its lack of desirable
characteristics. However, it was also extremely disliked from what it
communicated to the participants. Several times comments about the
appearance and the idea that it indicated “kids” and “sugar water” we made.
Additionally, the flexible pouch and aluminum bottle were said to be unhealthy
looking packages, giving the consumer the perception that an unhealthy product
was inside. This perception signals that using these packages will not enable the
consumer to reach his or her values.

Among the last attributes mentioned, natural packages with a clean tasting

product were characteristics the participants wanted for cherry juice. The

85

inertness of a package was a key attribute that consumers perceived indicated a
healthy product. Glass was frequently mentioned as a pure material that did not
interact with the product, which may indicate why glass performed so well for the
rank order of packages for cherry juice. This also may explain why the PET
bottle performed not as well, because several consumers indicated they could
taste the plastic in the product. The plastic taste to the consumers indicated an
unhealthy product, and using the means and chain those attributes would not
enable them to reach the ultimate goal of being healthy and living a long time.

WIthin the context of this study, each demographic group was chosen to
see if there was a difference between the groups and the attributes they look for
in healthy juice packaging. Mostly similarities developed, however it was
mentioned at least once in each focus group that it depended on the situation as
to which package they liked the best and would choose. The mothers with
children displayed this thinking frequently when thinking of packaging appropriate
for their children. As previously stated, the mothers were not only concerned for
their own health, but for their child’s safety as well.

The analysis of the thought units also indicates that there were some
differences among the demographic groups. The 24—29 year olds appeared to be
more concerned with the containment of the product, while the 41-51 year olds
appeared to be more concerned with the protection of the product. However the
attributes associated with these functions were mentioned only minimally;
containment accounted for 6.64 % of the overall thought units and protection

accounted for 4.53%.

The thought unit analysis also indicates that labeling was the category
most comments were categorized as across all focus groups (33.4% of
communication overall). The comments from the focus groups indicate the
consumers felt there were many things a label could do to indicate a healthy
product. While labeling was discussed at length during the focus groups, the
packages presented did not have labels. Yet, the discussion that occurred
provided insight on how to best convey healthy pr0perties to a consumer. The
participants mentioned simple, natural looking labels, with clearly stated facts and
benefits, backed by a credible source to be the best way to convey the healthful
attributes of cherry juice. These would lead them to believe the product is
healthy, allowing them to feel healthy and lead a healthy lifestyle, and ultimately
be healthy.

Although some packages had specific attributes that lead the consumers
to their values, other factors should be investigated to indicate behavior. Price
was a major driver for many of the consumers. The glass bottle was the best in
meeting their needs and values for a package for cherry juice. However, due to
the fact that glass is an expensive material, some of the participants indicated
they would probably not buy it. The participants who were price sensitive
seemed to choose the PET bottle for cherry juice. How the participants indicated
they would act compared to how they would actually act, would provide more

understanding of the drivers behind consumer behavior.

87

Chapter 7 - Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that the different attributes of packaging
have an effect on consumer perception of a product. When shopping, consumers
look for specific attributes to achieve their end goals or values of the means and
chain. They encounter and view differently the various packaging attributes that
fulfill the functions of containment, protection, communication, and utility. These
different views enable them to decide which package and products will meet their
goals, and, ultimately, influence their intention to purchase.

The objectives stated at the beginning of this project were met:

A Identify how different types of beverage packages may influence

consumer’s permption of a product

A Provide information and evidence to the cheny industry about the

impadbeveragepadragingmayhaveonconsumerperceptionof
cherry juice; and

The results from the packaging rank order indicate that different beverage
packages influence consumer perception a product. The significant shifts of the
packaging rank order from before to after the discussion of cherry juice, show that
consumer perception changed when a product context was applied. Significant
downward shifts in packaging rank ordering was observed for the aluminum
bottle (x2= 58.365, sigma= 0.011), the HDPE jug (x2= 52.960, sigma= 0.034) and
the flexible pouch (x2= 70.095, sigma= 0.00).

From the analysis of thought units it is clear that communication is a huge
function of packaging that consumers recognize. The units categorized as

communication, with the sub category of transparency, size and other packaging

88

features, were the most frequently mentioned. They accounted for over half
(53.2%) of the thought units in this study. This indicates the different attributes of
communication function may influence the way a consumer perceives a product.
Supported by the comments of the focus groups, different packages, with

different attributes have an effect on how a sees a product.

A Develop a Means End Chain for cherry juice

The Means End Chain created for cherry juice shows that consumers want
a transparent, simple package that is easy to use, reclose, store, and recycle.
While there are some differences in the way certain demographic groups view
packages, there are strong similarities that can be used for future designs.
Overall, the glass bottle was the package best liked for cherry juice. lt fulfilled the
need for attributes like transparency (being able to see the color and
consistency), a natural package, durable, pourable, recycleability, inertness
(clean taste) reclosablity, ease of use, and portability. The participants felt this
package best fulfilled their needs when shopping for cheny juice. These
attributes lead to functional consequences where they could consume a healthy
product, easily, anywhere, would not spill or drop it, preserve the juice, which
creates less waste and it is safe to handle. These consequences lead them to
psychosocial consequences which include feeling healthy, leading a healthy
lifestyle, not being wasteful, preserving the environment, feeling like a good
mother, and not being clumsy or frustrated, and preventing others from seeing

you that way. Ultimately, these consequences lead them to their end state of

89

being or values; being healthy, living longer, preserving the environment, having

confidence and being a good mother.

Chapter 8 - Research limitations

There exist limitations in several areas of this project. The packages for
this project were used as a result of available packages from another study, in
addition to existing packages in the market place. The flexible pouch and the
brick pack were obtained from commercial markets, they had printed labels. To
ensure consistency across all treatments, these products had to be altered so
that their text and graphics were not apparent. Although care was taken in
treating the packages, it potentially affected participants’ perception of the
packages. At one point, a participant mentioned the flexible pouch looked as if it
had been spray painted at home. Finally, each participant was supposed to
receive one of each type of package for the focus group. However, researchers
were only able to obtain eight flexible pouches and eight gable top cartons, as a
result, participants had to share these treatments, while participants each
received their own package for the remaining treatments. This may have made it
difficult for them to visualize and rank order the packages.

A convenience sample was pulled from the campus area. As such,
findings are not generalizable to the population at large. Eighty percent of the
participants (46 out of 59) completed a college degree or higher while almost
37.3% (22 out of 59) completed a graduate degree or higher. The participants in
this sample were fairly well educated in comparison to the total US. population.
The in 2006 census reported that 28% of adults 25 years and older had received
at least a bachelor's degree (US. Census Bureau 2006).

In addition, 21 out of the 59 (35.6%) participants had tried or regularly

drank cherry juice. This may have influenced their package rank order as they

91

may have been familiar with packages commonly used for cherry juice. They also
may have been affected by whether or not they like the product. Finally, although
this study did not try to target participants who were connected with Michigan
State University, due to the recruitment techniques and location, many
participants were affiliated with the University. Since several studies indicating
the beneficial properties of cherry juice has been conducted at Michigan State
University, and bemuse the University is home to the School of Padtaging, it is
suspected that the participants involved in this study may have had more
knowledge on these topics than the general population. However, no one with a
background in Packaging participated.

Analysis of the information collected may have experienced some error.
Out of 59 participants, two sets of data from the package rank ordering exercise
had to be thrown out due to the participants’ lack of understanding of how to
perform the task. At least one participant rated the packages 1 through 7 rather
than rank them. As a result, multiples of numbers occurred in the first and
second rank ordering, which made the data unusable. One more participant
simply did not answer the second rank order, and therefore that data had to also
be thrown out. in addition, several participants did not turn in their rank order
sheets, resulting in some missing data.

Although frequencies of the categories of thought units were found, this
does not necessarily indicate the most important topics discussed. Although
some topics were discussed more than others, it was apparent that sometimes
an extremely important topic may have only been mentioned once, but with

extreme intensity. As much as possible powerful comments were noted and

92

recorded. However, to identify the most important issues, a scale rating the
importance of topics to participants should have been developed.

Finally, due to the nature of this study, it is possible that participants may
not have been completely truthful in their answers. While they were asked to
write down their packaging rank orders before revealing them publicly,
participants may have changed answers when witnessing what other participants
selected. Fern and Bristol (2006) suggest that information gathered in focus
groups may be more generalizable toward the setting than during a consumption
and purchase process. This suggests participants may have acted differently in

this focus group setting than out in the market place.

93

Chapter 9 - Future research

With several companies focusing more on the consumer when designing
packaging, quantitative and qualitative techniques for interpreting consumer
behavior are increasingly important. Various projects can be created with this
research as a basis.

> A quantitative experiment based on the results of this study that
investigated the research questions on a larger scale

> A similar experiment with participants from all different demographic
groups

> A project based on the findings of this research could be done that
designed and compared several different packages that have the
most commonly mentioned packaging attribute in this study,
including one that is

Transparent,

Reclosable,

Simple,

Durable

Easy to use and store, and,
Recycleable.

000000

> An ethnographic study could be developed to examine the actual
usage, storage and disposal conditions of the various packages.
This study could then be repeated to examine which package
consumers preferred.

> A similar study, including the packages mentioned by consumers
which they did not see present; which include a high density

polyethylene jug with a handle, frozen, concentrated juice in a

composite can, aluminum cans with a pop top, small aluminum
cans with a pull tab, and large plastic juice containers like those for
Ocean Spray".

> A study in which the consumers were asked to list attributes of a
package that indicated to them “healthy” or “nutraceutical
properties,” before being exposed to any packages.

> A study in which the packages all had the same, generic label for

cherry juice.

95

APPENDICES

96

Appendix A

Screening Questionnaire

97

Screening Questionnaire for potential Focus Group Particignts

We are going to be conducting several focus groups to better
understand the impact of packaging on consumer perception of a
product. I would like to ask you a few questions to see if you fit within
our criteria for our study.

Do you drink juice? Yes No

IF NO; thank them for their time and interest. Do not continue.

Are you of the ages:

24-29 Yes No
41 -51 Yes No

Are you a mother 24 years of age or above?
Yes No
Is your child of the age 48-144 months?

Yes No

98

Appendix B

IRB approval letter and lRB approved Moderator Guide

99

 

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

OFFICE OF
REGULATORY
AFFAIRS

Human Research
Protection Programs

BIOMEDICAL 8. HEALTH
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
BOARD (BIRB)

COMMUNITY RESEARCH
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
BOARD (CRIRB)

socrAL SCIENCE!
BEHAVIORAL l EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
BOARD (SIRB)

202 Olds Hall

East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1046
517-355-2180

Fax: 517-432-4503

whurnanresearchmsuedu
:lRB 8 BIRB: IRB@msu.edu
CRIRB: airb@msu.edu

 

{S U is an aflr‘marive-acrion
7Iml-opporrrmily institution.

Initial IRB
Application
Approval

August 8, 2007

T0: Laura BIX
153 Packaging Building

Category: EXPEDITED 1-2, 2-6
November 17, 2006
November 16, 2007

Re: IRB ii 06-844
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:

Title: IMPACT OF PACKAGE TYPE ON CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF A PRODUCT

The Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to advise you that
your project has been approved.

This letter Is to reflect that Audrey Whaling Ia listed as a study investigator for thisrproject.

The committee has found that your research project is appropriate in design, protects the rights and welfare of
human subjects, and meets the requirements of MSU’s Federal Wide Assurance and the Federal Guidelines
(45 CFR 46 and 21 CF R Part 50). The protection of human subjects In research Is a partnership between the
IRB and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as we both fulfill our responsibilities.

Renewals: IRB approval Is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing your project, you
must submit an Application for Renewal application at least one month before expiration. If the project is
completed, please submit an Application for Permanent Closure.

Revisions: The IRB must review any changes In the project, prior to Initiation of the change. Please submit an
Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. If changes are made at the time Of renewal, please
Include an Application for Revision with the renewal application.

Problems: If issues should arise during the condud of the research. such as unanticipated problems, adverse
events, or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects, notify the IRB Office promptly. Forms

are available to report these issues.

Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project, or on any
correspondence with the IRB Office.

Good luck In your research. If we can be Of further assistance, please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email
at lRB@msu.edu. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,
74.1.2.

Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D.

SIRB Chair

c: Diana TWEDE
130 Packaging Bldg
MSU

100

FOCUS GROUP MODERATOR GUIDE

I. INTRODUCTION

Did anyone have trouble parking or finding the room? Did everyone have a
chance to use the restroom? Make sure you get yourself some more
refreshments if you like before we start. And we are going to start soon so if you
need to have that last cigarette, please do so now.

Hello and welcome. My name is Audrey and I will be your facilitator today. We
are going to talk about packaging and what you guys think about it. I am
interested in your personal perceptions, thoughts, and opinions. I am here to
help keep discussion flowing and make sure everyone gets a chance to talk. If
you feel that I am speaking too quickly or do not understand my questions, please
feel freetotell metoslowdown oraskmetoclarify.

There are no right or wrong answers. I want you all to give your thoughts, so do
not be afraid tO speak up, even if you disagree, agree, orjust have something to
add. I am not looking for a consensus, just what you guys are thinking.

Just to let you know, only myself and my research team will be using this
information for my project. However, we will be video recording this discussion,
so that all droughts and opinions may be heard. And it helps me to remember
everything that was said, because I have such a bad memory! Additionally, there
are two people observing behind that window to Observe what we are talking
about. Say hi and wave!

Does anyone have any questions? Ok, here we go!

101

ll. WARM UP

a. Do you notice packaging when you are shopping? Do you ever think about
packaging when you are buying something? Do you ever buy anything just
bemuse of the package?

III. Package Types

I am going to put some packages in front of you here on the table. I would like
you to look at them and touch them ifyou like. On the paper I have given you
please list them in order of the one you like most to the one you like least. (Each
package will have a name and number)

Probe 1: Let's talk about your lists, how did you order them and why did you do it
that way?

Probe 2: What features made it the package you liked the most?
Probe 3: The least?
Probe 4: What do you think the package says about the product inside?
b. What other beverage packages do you use that you do not see here?
Probei: What do you like about that kind Of package?
c. Do you drink juice?
Probei: What kinds of juices do you drink?
Probe 2: When do you drink juice (ie with breakfast, with meals, between meals)?

Probe 3: Is there a certain kind of package you typically buy juice in? Why do you
buy those kinds of packages?

Probe 4: Do you think the package sends a message about the product?

Probe 5: If so what?

(I. What do you look (mlories, price, health benefits etc) when you shop for juice?

Probe 1: Why do you look for (calories, price, health benefits etc when you
buy juice?

Probe 2: Are you aware of the health benefits juice can Offer?

102

 

Probe 3: Does that influence you to buy juice?

Probe 4: Would it influence you to buy juice if you were aware of the health
benefits?

We all know that many food products these days can Offer healthful benefits to
consumers; I’d like to talk to you about how a package might communicate these
benefits to a consumer.

e. What could manufacturers do to convey health benefits of a product to
consumers?

Probe 1: What kinds of packaging do you think could communicate this
feature/attribute to consumers?

e. DO you drink tart cherry juice? Do you know what is in it? (It is suspected that
participants will volunteer knowledge about the healthy or nutraceutical properties
of tart cheny juice. If not moderator will indicate that the tart cheny juice has
these properties)

Probe 2: What kind of packaging could help communicate healthy benefits of tart
cherry juice to consumers?

Probe 3: What kind of package might inspire you to buy tart cherry juice?

f. And finally today, I would like you to look once again at the packages in front of
you. Imagine that they contain Tart Cherry Juice that is full of healthy benefits
that can have a positive impact on your life. Now, I want you to rank the
packages from the one you like the best to the one you like the least.

Probe 1: Why did you rank them in the order you did?
Probe 2: What perceptions do they give you about the product inside?
Probe 3: Which do you believe best communicate nutraceutical properties about

the product?

Thanks so much for your comments today. I am investigating what different
types communicate to consumers about products. Do you have anything
else you would like to add? Other comments, questions or concerns?

Thank you for taking the time today. I appreciate your participation. Please have
some more snacks before you leave and thank you again.

103

Appendix C

Consent Forms

104

Consent Form 1

Instructions and Research Study Consent Form
Impact of Package Type on Consumer Perception of a Product

The MSU School Of Packaging is conducting focus groups that investigate the
impact of several different packages on a consumer's perception of a product.
Ultimately, this study attempts to:

1) Identify consumer perception of package/product systems currently in the
market

2) Identify consumer perception of package/product systems that could
potentially be used in the market

3) Identify how packaging can impact consumer perception Of a produd

To participate you must:

0 Be aged 41-51

I] Drink Juice

ll Be willing to travel to Michigan State University's wmpus for testing
ll Be willing to be video taped while you participate in the study

If you decide to participate in this research study, you will be asked to fill out
some general demographic information regarding yourself.

You will be presented with six different kinds Of packages. You will be asked a
series Of questions about the packages and invited to freely express your
thoughts and feelings. You will also be asked how you perceive the product
inside the packages. Additionally you will be asked about your juice drinking
habits and your shopping behaviors. This seasion will last approximately 1-1 ‘6
hours.

You are free to withdraw from the study at any time for any reason. If you
withdraw you will still receive your $50 msh compensation.

As mentioned, all package testing will be recorded using two video cameras.
Video will be used to recall details of the focus group. Video clips may also be
used in the classroom for educational purposes. You will not be identified by
name in the video clips and you will not be connected to the data collected.

Other than the $50 cash compensation, you will not benefit directly from your
participation in this study. However, your participation in this study may
contribute to our understanding Of consumer perception of product due to
packaging, better inform the industry of consumer perception of packaging, and
change the approach to design taken by current and future designers.

Possible risks, although minimal, include the chance that you may become
uncomfortable speaking openly in a group. You may also experience anxiety or

105

embarrassment talking about your consumer behavior. As mentioned previously
you will not be identified in the video clips by name. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable bylaw.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this study, please contact Dr.
Laura Bix, Director of the School of Packaging at Michigan State University at
517-355-4556 or bixlaura@msu.edu.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact- anonymously, if you wish- Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by
phone at 517-355-2180, fax 517-432-4503, email at

ucrihs@rnsu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this
study:

 

I consent to using the video clips of myself in the classroom for
educational purposes. (You will not be identified by name in the video.)

I DO NOT consent to using the video clips of myself in the classroom for
educational purposes. (In this mse the video tape will be used only for research
purposes to recall details of the session.)

You will be provided with a copy of this consent form.

106

Consent Form 2

Instructions and Research Study Consent Form
Impact of Package Type on Consumer Perception Of a Product

The MSU School of Packaging is conducting focus groups that investigate the
impact of several different packages on a consumer’s perception of a product.
Ultimately, this study attempts to:

1) Identify consumer perception Of package/product systems currently in the
market

2) Identify consumer perception of package/product systems that could
potentially be used in the market

3) Identify how packaging can impact consumer perception of a product

TO participate you must:

ll Be aged 24-29

I] Drink Juice

fl Be willing to travel to Michigan State University's campus for testing
0 Be willing to be video taped while you participate in the study

If you decide to participate in this research study, you will be asked to fill out
some general demographic information regarding yourself.

You will be presented with six different kinds of packages. You will be asked a
series Of questions about the packages and invited to freely express your
thoughts and feelings. You will also be asked how you perceive the product
inside the packages. Additionally you will be asked about your juice drinking
habits and your shopping behaviors. This session will last approximately 1-1 ‘6
hours.

You are free to withdraw from the study at any time for any reason. If you
withdraw you will still receive your $50 cash compensation.

As mentioned, all package testing will be recorded using two video cameras.
Video will be used to real! details of the focus group. VIdeo clips may also be
used in the classroom for educational purposes. You will not be identified by
name in the video clips and you will not be connected to the data collected.

Other than the $50 cash compensation, you will not benefit directly from your
participation in this study. However, your participation in this study may
contribute to our understanding of consumer perception Of product due to
packaging, better inform the industry Of consumer perception of packaging, and
change the approach to design taken by current and future designers.

Possible risks, although minimal, include the chance that you may become
uncomfortable speaking openly in a group. You may also experience anxiety or

107

embarrassment talking about your consumer behavior. As mentioned previously
you will not be identified in the video clips by name. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this study, please contact Dr.
Laura Bix, Director of the School of Packaging at Michigan State University at
517-355-4556 or bixlaura@msu.edu.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact- anonymously, if you wish- Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by
phone at 517-355-2180, fax 517-432-4503, email at

ucrihs@rnsu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this
study:

 

I consentto usingthevideoclipsofmyselfintheclassroom for
edumtional purposes. (You will not be identified by name in the video.)

I DO NOT consent to using the video clips Of myself in the classroom for
educational purposes. (In this case the video tape will be used only for research
purposes to recall details of the session.)

You will be provided with a copy of this consent form.

108

Consent Form 3

Instructions and Research Study Consent Form
Impact of Package Type on Consumer Perception of a Product

The MSU School of Packaging is conducting focus groups that investigate the
impact of several different packages on a consumer‘s perception of a product.
Ultimately, this study attempts to:

1) Identify consumer perception of package/product systems currently in the
market

2) Identify consumer perception of package/product systems that could
potentially be used in the market

3) Identify how packaging can impact consumer perception of a product

TO participate you must:

0 Be a mother aged 24 years or older with a child between 48-144 months
I] Drink Juice

II Be willing to travel to Michigan State University's campus for testing

I] Be willing to be video taped while you participate in the study

If you decide to participate in this research study, you will be asked to fill out
some general demographic information regarding yourself.

You will be presented with six different kinds of packages. You will be asked a
series of questions about the packages and invited to freely express your
thoughts and feelings. You will also be asked how you perceive the product
inside the packages. Additionally you will be asked about your juice drinking
habits and your shopping behaviors. This seasion will last approximately 1-1 ‘/2
hours.

You are free to withdraw from the study at any time for any reason. If you
withdraw you will still receive your $50 cash compensation.

As mentioned, all package testing will be recorded using two video cameras.
Video will be used to real! details of the focus group. Video clips may also be
used in the classroom for educational purposes. You will not be identified by
name in the video clips video and you will not be connected to the data collected.

Other than the $50 cash compensation, you will not benefit directly from your
participation in this study. However, your participation in this study may
contribute to our understanding of consumer perception of product due to
packaging, better inform the industry of consumer perception of packaging, and
change the approach to design taken by current and future designers.

Possible risks, although minimal, include the chance that you may become
uncomfortable speaking openly in a group. You may also experience anxiety or

109

embarrassment talking about your consumer behavior. As mentioned previously
you will not be identified in the video clips by name. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable bylaw.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this study, please contact Dr.
Laura Bix, Director of the School of Packaging at Michigan State University at
517-355-4556 or bixlaura@msu.edu.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect Of this study, you may
contact- anonymously, if you wish- Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair., Chair Of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by
phone at 517-355—2180, fax 517-432-4503, email at

ucrihs@rnsu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this
study:

 

I consentto usingthevideoclipsofmyselfintheclassroom for
educational purposes. (You will not be identified by name in the video.)

I DO NOT consent to using the video clips of myself in the classroom for
educational purposes. (In this case the video tape will be used only for research
purposes to recall details of the session.)

You will be provided with a copy of this consent form.

110

 

Appendix D

Demographic Survey and Results

111

Demographics

About you

Now just a few questions to help us classify your responses:
1) Gender

_Male _Female

2) What is your year of birth?

19__

3) Are you (check as many as apply):

_Black or African American

_White

___Asian (including Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and South East Asians)

_Native American or Alaskan Native
_Something else?

 

4) Are you of Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Origin, including Mexican American,
Chicano, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or Other
Hispanic?

_Yes _No

5) What is your family’s total household income before taxes?

_Under $20,000 _$20,000 to $34,999 _ $35,000 to $49,999
__$50,000 to $74,999 _ $75,000 to $99,999 _ $100,000 or more

6) Excluding Kindergarten, how many years of formal education have you
complete?

Years

112

 

9.38m DEQEaOEOD

113

 

114

 

115

Appendix E

Calculation of lntercoder Reliability

116

 

 

3-83-32

 

 

mm Five—3.70m:

 

7
/ mvH->ma-wm:
.
.

a «teed-EB

 

/ H a: F->ma-EEOO

 

/ / N .38

 

mn-Oce-nfl

 

 

mvH-Ea-om: mecca-cm... when-Eco nSJfia-EEOO Hcccou

 

 

 

 

 

 

93-398:
TEE-Eco
m

DEM... >Occm:.ucou u.o mamem Am

      

     

Rosa-am.
meH-sfia-cm:
v

  

mecca-92
(m THEE-cm...

  

mm TEE-cm:

> a nIima-EEOO .Nfcuoo
N- m .250

n F Ian-EEOO ”r... .250
F 9...:
Ease:

6:600 .o oEmem.
965 escort 620.8.» 5.: E0... :39 8.828 .N

9.5. 29.9.. mm o. a: 82:2 .33 n 88.0 .. as: £955 82 .o
3.958 ucm .38 some 3 ucuoo we; Ban 0:. .O o\om 22.2.6.3... 2

83:33.9 8892:. .o :o..m_:o_uo

117

.UOEEsm 28.0020 9.3 .PZNZmeA—Xu WHIP .0. $8 m5 5
NNHN+HH+HHHMN

.E:m m..mnE:: O... m.._n_.>_<Xm cc. .0“.
638 m8 ".0 2.8 .932: a... :. mm:.m> O... 9.288 .6 85.555: .0 528:: _88 :8 83:50 Am

 

.88 5.28
3.25.52

     

 

 

m3 .398:
mm THEE-Ow:
Nina-Eco
3 TOO-EEO“.

 

NH .3 H

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

     
 

280..-
2.0.».

N
Lag-Eco

    

   

   

   

 

38:28:. mvH->ma-mm: $72.38... ->m:-EEOO .DUOO

 

$58 _88 O... .52 6823.8 88. c8 .0 m..n_z<xm. :m m. m8 .802. .UOEE:m 82... 3.833....
83:80 a... .o 288 :E:_oo can .so. a... 8sz .__OO comm :. :288 9.25 83mm. on. .o E:m cc... Av

6.8.32: a... to :8 m :. boom... mm; >=8 m 6:2... 8...:

conga-Om: m mm; 8. .2905 N... .OUOO BE... 5:: _mo.mO_O:O>ma-u:mE:.8:ou m mm; 8.:: :8 83:9...
r...» .38 5...: Ego... vacuum 9: .on. .m__OO _mcommfi to on. c. :82: 8O; muccEcOEmmE .._OO
_mcommfi to. .03: O8 :. :83: on __..s >=8 m m:.._.r 8E: _28853:-:o.umu.::EEOU m mm; .. com-3m
82:8 Son 8...: 83:9... um... O... 6.9588 .0... .m__mu _mcommzu a... :. noun... on __.2. 2.8 m .85:
96:8 0.5. m... : .wE8 5:35.:8 on. c. 8.85 on __..s 8...: £908 O... .0 some .8 3:8 2....

118

O...“

    

8.6m

     
 

2.: 38:60
.6 .86..

388.88 888: m. on... A m. .9: 8:8; NR... u

Amomd - mm.

 

mficomaa
.6 .36..-

    
    

eOw - z
Amomd - mm. H

ON I Ow

Iv.

8:8. 86:60 8
wad n Sod + Sod + mmod + Nvod + Red + 8.... +
Smod + wood + vmwé + vad + «.qu + mmmd + $0.. + Hmod + momd + vmod + mHmdu .Ow

626:8 mm O6 9698::

\
O... EOE-696 m...“ E .865 >9 EOEOOBO .0 $6526... UOHOOQXO O5 .0 E:m O5 OSQEOU An
\
thZmnmwn—Xw war: .8 86.. _n6: 22:28 .o .88 O8 :6... 8.88 mm u 802...

 

=33 __m.m>O
I A *N H

 

s

.Esm m.OnE_..c Or... #7325.“an mat... .0“.
AN
mvé H

_muou =m.O>O

 

u .m
mans—(Xm— O... .6". .865 B 85:689.. .0 .On.E:: Oz... .8 65:3... UOHOOQXO O... 86:60 3
N

.E:mm.OnE::
nuH+H+m+H+m+H+~+S+mH+S+¢+m+fl+¢+~+muow

     

119

Appendix F

Focus Group Findings

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.gcQ 8:00.:

.0200: 53> 80.25

.88... .9. ___>>
8000. 50% 6.00.0 0.:0EE00
0508.001 .050 2000. 02:03.6

2:8 5:00 5020:
0_:0m .50 E:c_E:_< 0.:0m mac: x00: .65 00... 0300 0_n_x0_n_ 000.0 5390.1
across”—
c9230
000E 0.:0EE00 2.280.: 02 :23 0.0505.
00.0
000:. 0E0EE00 0.580.: oz .00.» mmém
020
>055 50> 5-2.
202 2:00
2000 52 ___>>

000.03 9.005 000.05 0:.0EE00
2_00m 0.00.30 .02 260m 039.005 02:03:95

0:030:20
x02 2.23 0.02 rco>> =0 .moEE 9:02.960
030.50 030.20 .8 0000 02:89.5

9:8 5:00 50:00

0_:om ._.wn_ E:c_E:_< 0_:0m wan: x000 xo_.m 00.. 0300 0.90.07. 000.0 EoEEEcoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c265:

 

 

canvas". 8 050.003. 00:20 0:00... Eat £c0EE00

121

 

20:0-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.000 .9302.
05000.0 20.00...-
2.0000500- 8300.0
0000.0 0... 00000.20. 000.000 00. 000 0.000.050
000 0. .005 000 .502 0.0.0002 00.0.. .029... 0. .005- 02000030
00.300.
0.000 00:00 00:00 .050 .0 60000
0.00m. ..m.0 E:0_E:_< 0.00m. m0o... .000 v.0..m 00.. 0.00.0 0.0.80.0 000.0 500900000;
00000.0:EE00
00000:”.
.3090
00. 0E. 2.000 00.0.0.0
0:083- .85 ___>> 5.; 0.0502
00.0
000E 0.008.000 0030.90 02 .00> mm-v~
00.0
000... 0.00EE00 00080.0 02 .00> 5-;
0000000
6000.0 0.0.0.0000. 0000.0 0.00. 0.00. 00000 0000.300 0.00.5000
o. 0.0.000... .0290? 0. 0.0.000... 00... .0000 50.5 0.00 6000.0 020000000:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00000000 0.00EE00

122

 

0.00. 5.00.. .5.

 

0.00. x0000: 00.

00.2.00
0...... 0.0505.

 

02o .8. 0.30

 

0.0000000 00080.0 02

 

 

02o .00. 3-...

 

 

 

 

 

00200.0 000 0.0.00 >~0.0 02 020000000...
0.0.00 .0502
0.0005

0.00. 00.0.0 2.00.0 0.0.0.0 ..0.0.02 02000000

 

0.0000 0

 

. 00.0. .o 0:30..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.000 0..
000 0000.0...0
9.. 9.. 00900.. 5.0.00
28; 03. 80.. 0.: 5.; 0.9.82
00.00.
00E00
.0=00;
00.500.00-
0000.000
80.. 2:. 020 .00. 00-3
000E 0.000....00 00080.0 02 00.0 .000 5-5.
0.00090
05000.0 00.0.00.
0v... 00.00.. v._.... 0...... 00.005.
.00.00000.. 00000098 .902. 2.0.0000: 0.00E0.00
.02 00m .0000 .005. 000 00000 020000xw- 02:0000003

 

 

 

00000000 0.000.050

123

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0>0

:0 000.000 00 00. 00 .00

>000... ..00_00>0000.

2.000 .00.. .030
0000 ___00 .0000 0.00EE00
2000.0 2000.5 0. .30....0 0. 000.05 02:80:00...

30.03.00: .000 0. >000
..000E00 .000... 0... 0.000.080
.29. o. .000 20.03.00: 20.03.00: 0. 28... .0 0208000
0.00m 00:00 00000 .0000.0
0.00m .-w0 E00.E0.< 7 0.00m m0o... .000 0.000 00-r 030.0 0308.”. 000.0 0.... .0 00:
000.00. .0000 .0000 0.0 . .00 0.000.. .000 0. >00”... 3......
000000".
00.0.30
0.00. 5.00.. 000 0...... 0.00.0.2

 

0.00. 20.00.. 00".

00.0 .00.. 0N-0N

 

 

0.030. 00.0.0-.0 02

 

 

 

 

0.0.0.0..0 02 02.0002
0.0.0.0 00 000.000 00.000 0.0.00.0
0300.0 :000 <
000. 0. .000 0.000. 00.0. 0. 00.0.0 2.00.0
.2030: :00... ..000_x0..0<.. .00... 00.0.5 020000

 

00.0..

9.0 .8 05.000..

00000000 0.00EE00

124

 

0.000.300

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0300_0>00.0 030_0>00m 02000000
0.000 0.000 00000 00000
0.000 .50 0.00.302. m0o... 0000 0.000 00... 0300 0.00.0.0 000.0 000 00.0
00.0..00
0...... 0.00.0.2
.0300 0 0. 0.0.0000
5.5... 0.00.0 .20.... 02o .00.. 00-00
.0300 0 0.
0....00 0.00.0 00.0 .00> Fm-..“
>.._30 000.0.0 .0. 000.90 00000 0.003.000
000.00. .02 0000.02 .003 0.000 0200000003
80090 0.0.0
030.00 030.00 >000 0. 0. >000 ..0000 >000 0. 0.000.300
030000.000 03000.000 >000 .30... 03000.00... >000 .30... 03000300 02000000
0.000 00.00 00000 00000
0.000 ...m.0 0.00.E0.< 000... 0.000 0.000 0o... 030.0 0.00.0.0 000.0
000.90
00.0.30
0...... 0.00.0.2

 

00.0 .00.. 00-00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

020 .00.. 5-...

 

 

0000.300 0.00.0E00

125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>0.000
030.5000.
0.0.. 000.2-
.0000 00.2.00
.003 __.>>- 0...... 0.00.0.2
0.00320 0.
000.0. 0000.0
.0 .00000 00.0 .00> 00-00
>0.000
0302.000.
E0.. 000.2 00.0 .00> .040
0300.0>00. 0300.0>00. 0300.0>00. 0300.300
.02 .02 .02 020000000:

 

 

0000.300 0.00EE00

126

Appendix G

Diseases associate with aging

127

Much of the literature published on the healthful and beneficial properties
of cherry juice, suggest it an be medicinal for diseases like arthritis, heart
disease, and mnoer.ThesediseasesareamongthetopfivethatailAmerimns
Aged 65 years and older according to the Center for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) (CDC 2004).

 

 

 

 

 

(CDC 2004)

128

Due to the healthful benefits and properties of cherry juice, it is thought
that consumption may help relief some of the pain of these disease or even help
to prevent them from occurring. Although arthritis can and does effect people of
all ages, the CDC reported that 49.9% of all men and women who are aged 65
years of age or older in the United States reported suffering from some form of
arthritis. The age of onset for several forms of arthritis are middle age or above.
Typically, with all diseases, prevalence increases with age. The same is true for
heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States (Federal
lnteragency Forum on Aging, 2004),"Over 83 percent of people who die of
coronary heart disease are 65 or older,” (American Heart Association 2006).
Although it is a chronic disease with no cure, a healthy diet and regular exercise
are some ways to prevent it,

Similarly, cancer is the second leading cause of death for Americans aged
65 years and older It is a chronic disease, that again increases in occurrence as
agcsincrease. Currentlythereisnolmowncureforcancer,butseveral
treatments exist that may help to alleviate the pain and discomfort of the disease.

Several studies (previously discussed in the literature review) have shown
consumption of cherry juice to alleviate some of the symptoms of these diseases
and even aid in reducing the risk of them occurring. Because of these results, it
was thought that a larger population of people aged 65 years and older, were the
main consumers ofcherryjuice. The aim ofthisstudywasto expand thefocusof
the cherry industry into other markets, suggesting cherry juice is not just for a

specific population with diseases, but for everyone.

129

Appendix H

Recruitment Examples

130

RecruitmentFlyerl

Do YOU DRINK IUICE?

Who: Anyone aged 41-51 who drinks juice

What: We want YOUR input on beverage packages.

The MSU School of is conducting a research study to
consumers perceive different beverage packages.
Study subjects will be asked to participate in a one
time focus group session and asked to express their
thoughts and feelings about several different kinds of
beverage packaging.

Where: The focus group will take place in Michigan
State University’s Communication Arts and Sciences
building in room 182. This is located on Michigan
State University’s campus on the corner of Wilson and
Red Cedar road, East Lansing, MI 48823.

Why: The intent of this study is to collect information
about consumer perceptions of packaging. For your
participation you will receive $50.

How:

it you are interested in participating in this study,

please contact Audrey Whaling at whalinga@msu.edu
or via phone at 517-282-1198

 

131

Recruitment Flyer 2

DO YOU DRINK jUICE?

Who: Anyone aged 24-29 who drinks juice

What: We want YOUR input on beverage packages.

The MSU School of is conducting a research study to l
consumers perceive different beverage packages. ”
Study subjects will be asked to participate in a one .
time focus group session and asked to express their ;.
thoughts and feelings about several different kinds of
beverage packaging.

 

Where: The focus group will take place in Michigan
State University’s Communication Arts and Sciences
building in room 182. This is located on Michigan

State University’s campus on the corner of Wilson and
Red Cedar road, East Lansing, MI 48823.

Why: The intent of this study is to collect information

about consumer perceptions of packaging. For your
participation you will receive $50.

How:

If you are interested in participating in this study,
please contact Audrey Whaling at whalinga@msu.edu
or via phone at 517-282-1198

 

132

 

Recruitment Flyer 3

DO YOU DRINK leCE?

Who: Mothers 24 years or older with children
between the ages of 4 and 12 years, who drink juice

What: We want YOUR input on beverage packages.

The MSU School of is conducting a research study to
consumers perceive different beverage packages.
Study subjects will be asked to participate in a one
time focus group session and asked to express their
thoughts and feelings about several different kinds of
beverage packaging.

Where: The focus group will take place in Michigan
State University’s Communication Arts and Sciences
building in room 182. This is located on Michigan
State University’s campus on the corner of Wilson and
Red Cedar road, East Lansing, MI 48823.

Why: The intent of this study is to collect information

about consumer perceptions of packaging. For your
participation you will receive $50.

How:

If you are interested in participating in this study,
please contact Audrey Whaling at whalinga@msu.edu
or via phone at 517-282-1198

 

133

Recruitment Email 1

For: Anyone between the ages of 41-51 who drink juice
Subject: MSU research project participation

Greetings! Do you drink juice? Would you like to participate in a research project
for the School of Packaging at Michigan State University? This email is intended
to inform you about an opportunity occurring at MSU. Please note that you are
under no obligation to participate.

Purpose: The MSU School of packaging wants YOUR input on beverage
packages. The study is designed to find out how consumers perceive different
beverage packages. Six packaging types will be presented through a focus
group session and participants will be asked to express their thoughts and
feelings about the packages. The intent of this study is to collect information
about consumer perceptions of packaging.

Study Information:

If you would like to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in one
meeting, lasting about 1 ’/2 hours. This meeting will consist of discussions about
different beverage packages. These meetings will occur Tuesday, February 13th
and Thursday February 15‘h from 6:00-7:30 PM. You will only need to attend one
sessron.

Compensation:
For your participation you will receive $50. If you do participate, and during the
course of the study decide to withdraw from the study, you may do so without

penalty.

Locafion:

The focus group will take place in Michigan State University’s Communication
Arts and Sciences building in room 182. This is located on Michigan State
University’s campus on the corner of Wilson and Red Cedar road, East Lansing,
MI 48823.

Requirements:

To participate in this focus group, you must be of or between the ages of 41 and
51.

Contact Information:

If you are interested in participating in this study, please contact Audrey Whaling
at whalinga@msu.edu or via phone at 517-282-1198.

If you have questions or concerns about this study, please contact Dr. Laura Bix
at bixlaura@msu.edu or via phone at 517-355-4556

134

Recruitment Email 2

For: Anyone between the ages of 24-29 who drink juice
Subject: MSU research project participation

Greetings! Do you drink juice? Would you like to participate in a research project
for the School of Packaging at Michigan State University? This email is intended
to inform you about an opportunity occurring at MSU. Please note that you are
under no obligation to participate.

Purpose: The MSU School of packaging wants YOUR input on beverage
packages. The study is designed to find out how consumers perceive different
beverage packages. Six packaging types will be presented through a focus
group session and participants will be asked to express their thoughts and
feelings about the packages. The intent of this study is to collect information
about consumer perceptions of packaging.

Study Information:

if you would like to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in one
meeting, lasting about 1 1/2 hours. This meeting will consist of discussions about
different beverage packages.

Compensation:
For your participation you will receive $50. If you do participate, and during the
course of the study decide to withdraw from the study, you may do so without

penalty.

Locafion:

The focus group will take place in Michigan State University’s Communication
Arts and Sciences building in room 182. This is located on Michigan State
University’s campus on the corner of Wilson and Red Cedar road, East Lansing,
MI 48823.

Requirements:
To participate in this focus group, you must be of or between the ages of 24 and
29. You must also drink juice.

Contact Information:
If you are interested in participating in this study, please contact Audrey Whaling
at whalinga@msu.edu or via phone at 517-282-1198.

 

If you have questions or concerns about this study, please contact Dr. Laura Bix
at bixlaura@msu.edu or via phone at 517-355-4556

135

Recruitment Email 3

For: Mothers 24 years or older with children between 4-12 years of age
Subject: MSU research project participation

Greetings! Do you drink juice? Would you like to participate in a research project
for the School of Packaging at Michigan State University? This email is intended
to inform you about an opportunity occurring at MSU. Please note that you are
under no obligation to participate.

Purpose: The MSU School of packaging wants YOUR input on beverage
packages. The study is designed to find out how consumers perceive different
beverage packages. Six packaging types will be presented through a focus
group session and participants will be asked to express their thoughts and
feelings about the packages. The intent of this study is to collect information
about consumer perceptions of packaging.

Study Information:

If you would like to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in one
meeting, lasting about 1 1/2 hours. This meeting will consist of discussions about
different beverage packages.

Compensation:
For your participation you will receive $50. If you do participate, and during the
course of the study decide to withdraw from the study, you may do so without

penalty.

Location:

The focus group will take place in Michigan State University’s Communication
Arts and Sciences building in room 182. This is located on Michigan State
University’s campus on the corner of Wilson and Red Cedar road, East Lansing,
MI 48823.

Requirements:
To participate in this focus group, you must be a mother of or above the age of 24
with a child of or between the ages 4-12 years of age. You must also drink juice.

Contact Information:
If you are interested in participating in this study, please contact Audrey Whaling
at whalinga@msu.edu or via phone at 517-282-1198.

If you have questions or concerns about this study, please contact Dr. Laura Bix
at bixlaura@msu.edu or via phone at 517-355-4556

136

Web advertisement

Would you like to make some $$? Do you drink juice? Looking for adults aged
24-29, 41-51 and 24+ mothers with children to participate in a focus group. This
one time session will last 1-1 V2 hours and will focus on consumer perception of
packaging. For further info, contact packaginggroup06@gmail.com.

137

References

Abbott, D., (1989), Packaging PerspectivesLKendall/Hunt Publishing
Company, Dubuque, Iowa

Allen, R, (2004), “Welcoming Y!” Benefits Canada, 28(9), 51-53.

Ampuero, O., & Vila, N., (2006), “Consumer perceptions of product
packaging,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(2), 100-112.

Anderson, J., (1985), Cognitive Psychology and Its lmglicatlons, W.H.
Freeman, San Fransico, California.

Beverland, M., (2006) “The ‘real thing’: Branding authenticity in the luxury
wine trade,” Journal of Business Research, 59, 251 -258.

Bruice, P. (2001) Organic Chemistry, 3rd edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey, 347.

 

Blau, L. (1950), “Cherry diet control for gout and arthritis,” Texas
Reports on Biology and Medicine, 309-31 1.

Cherry Market Institute (2003) Michigan Cherry Committee, Background,
2003, Accessed April 20’“, 2006:
http://www.cherrvmkt.org/medialbackground info.html

Cherry Marketing Institute, (2006), CMI Juice Brochure 2, Accessed April 29‘“,
2006,
http://www.cherrvmkt.orgldownloads/CMl JuiceBr02.pdf

Cherry Market Institute (2003), Chara/Advantage, Michigan Cherry
Committee, 7

Cherry Market Institute; Michigan Cherry Committee, (2003), Tart Cherries
crop stafl'stias and Market Analysis, Michigan Cheny Committee Presentation

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). “The State of Aging and
Health in America, 2004.”

Cichon, A. & Ucherek, M., (1999), “The Influence of packagings of fruit juices
on consumers’ preferences,” Vorum, Ware, 1(4), 58-64

USDA (2004), Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Section 101, Retrieved

June 15‘, 2007,
http://www.cfsan.fda.govFlrd/cf101-14.html

138

DeFelice, Stephen L. FlM’s 70th Nutraceutica/ Conference: FlM Rationale and
proposed guidelines for the nutraceutical research & education act-NREA.
Presented

November 10—1 1, 2002. The Waldorf-Astoria, New York City

DNS Retailing Today, (2002), “Easy-open paint - What's Hot - Sherwin-
Williams’ Dutch Boy's packaging innovation plastic gallon container with an
easy twist-off lid, comfort side handle and pouring spout,” Find-Articles.com,
Accessed May 15, 2007,

http://findarticles.comLp/articles/mi mOFNP/is 15 41/ai 90529517

Engle, J., Blackwell, R. & Miniard, P., (1995), Consumer behavior, 8th edition,
Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL.

Federal lnteragency Forum on Aging, (2004), “Key indicators of Well being, ”
Older Americans, Update 2004, Federal lnteragency Forum on Age-Related
Statistics

Fennel, G., (1978), “Consumers’ Perception of the Product. Use Situation.”
Journal of Marketing, 42(2), 38-27.

Fresh & Co. Subotica. Next Juice. 2002
Accessed July 20, 2006:
http://www.nextiuice.comlehome.htm

Fox, K., (2005) “Packaging Research: An Overview,” Applied Ergonomirs,
(36), 363-372.

Fleischman, A. (1966), “The package as a marketing lever,” Management
Bulletin, 85. Packaging Division, American Management Association.

Fuhrman, B., Volkova, N., & Aviram, M., (2005), “Pomegranate Juice inhibits
oxidized LDL uptake and cholesterol biosynthesis in macrophages,” Journal
of Nutritional Biochemistry, 16, 570-576.

Getachew, A., 8. Peterson, C. (2005), Rapid opportunity assessment: Fruit
sector. MSU Product Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources. Ml.
USA.

George, J., (2006), ‘Survey: Perception huge in beverage packaging, ”
Packaging World Magazine, October, 98.

Giovanni P., (2005), "Determinants of Knowledge Flows and Their Effect on

Innovation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, 87(2), 308-
322.

139

Global Marketing Database (2006) “Beverage Packaging Annual Report
2005, United States,” Global Marketing Database

Gonzales, M., (2006), “Shelf-life of tart cherry nutraceutical juice: A
comparison.” of flexible pouches to bottles made from glass, PET, and
aluminum, “ Research Proposal.

Greensberg, E., (2005) “Legal Impact : Claims, not chemistry, often make for
product problems,” Packaging D/gest, Retreived May 13‘“, 2007:
http://www.packagimdigestcom/articles/ZOOS12/20.php

Gutman, J., (1997), “Means-End Chain as Goal Hierarchies,” Psycho/ogy&
Marketing, 14(6), 545—560

Halvorsen B, Carlsen M, Phillips K, Bohn S, Holte K, Jacobs D., & Blomhoff
R., (2006), “Content of redox-active compounds (i.e. antioxidants) in foods
consumed in the United States. American,” Journal of Clinical Nutrition, (84),
95-135.

Hobbs, J. E., (2002) “Evolving Supply Chains in the Nutraceuticals and

Functional Foods Industry,” Canadian Joumal ongn'cu/ture Economics,
50,(4), 559-568.

Jacoby, J & Olson, J., (1984), Perceived Quality: How Consumers View
Stores and Merchandise. D.C. Heath and Company. Massachusettes.

 

 

Jensen, T., (1997) “Tatham Chugs a $12 mil. campaign for Dean Foods”
Adweek, 38 (45), 2.

Johnson, L., (1990) “Quality: how to meet customer demands in a process
from design to disposal,” Journal of Occupationa/Accidents, (13), 167-170.

Karnes, C., Sridharan, S., 8. Kanet, J., (1995) “Measuring quality from the
consumer’s perspective: A methodology and its application,” Production
Economics, 39, 215-225.

Kupiec, B, 8. Revell, B. (2001), “Measuring consumer quality judgments,”
British Food Journal, 103(1), 7-22.

Kim, D., Heo, H., Kim, Y., Yang, H., & Lee, C., (2005), “Sweet and Sour
Cherry Phenolics and their protective effects on neuronal cells,” Journal of
Agn'cu/ture and Food Chemistry, 53, 9921 -9927.

Lansky, E. & Newman, R., (2007), “Punica granatum (pomegranate) and its

potential for prevention and treatment of inflammation and cancer,” Journal of
Ethnopharmaco/ogy, (109), 177-206.

140

Lukas, P., (2005) “Heavy Metal”, Fast Company, 99, 38.

Kang,S., Seeram, N.,; Nair, M., & Bourquin, L., (2003), “Tart cherry
anthocyanins inhibit tumor development in Apc (Min) mice and reduce
proliferation of human colon cancer cells,” Biotech Week, June,186.

Markgraf, S. (1998), “Dean Foods Co.” Dairy Foods, 99(4), 72.

Nasalroad, D., (1992), A study of the communication effects of food
packaging health claims on consumer perceptions. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Oklahoma.

Olson, J. & Jacoby, J., (1972), “Cue utilization in the quality perception
process,” Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference, 167—179. Association
for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, Ml.

Olson, J., & Reynolds, T., (2001) “Understanding consumer decision making,”
Understanding consumer decision makiniThe means-end approach to
marketing and Advertising Strategy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah,
New Jersey.

 

Peters, M., (1994), “Good packaging gets through to fickle buyers,” Marketing
20 (8).

Peters-Texeira, A. & Badrie, N., (2005), “Consumers’ perceptions of food
packaging in Trinidad, West Indies and its related impact on food choices,”
lntemational Joumal of Consumer Studies. 29(6), 508-514.

Patuck, A., Leppert, J., Zomorodian, N., Aronson, W., Hong, J., Barnard, R.J.,
Seeram, N., Liker, H., Wang, H., Elashoff, R., Herber, D., Aviram, M., lgnarro,
L., & Belldegrun, A., (2006), “Phase II Study of Pomegranate Juice for Men with
Rising Prostate-Soecific Antigen following Surgery or Radiation for Prostate
Cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, 12(13), 4018-4026.

Prasad, K, Cole. W, Kumar, 8., ChePrasad, K., (2002) “Pros and cons of
antioxidant use during radiation therapy,” Cancer Treatment Reviews, (2), 79-
91.

Pullman, M., Moore, W, and Wardell, D. (2002), “A comparison of quality
function deployment and conjoint analysis in new product design,” The
Journal of Product lnno vation Management, (1 9), 354-364.

Raudenbush, R. Meyer, 8., Eppich, W., Corley, N., & Petterson, S., (2002),
“Ratings of pleasantness and intensity for beverages served in containers
congruent and incongruent with expectancy,” Perceptual Motor Skills, 94,
671 -674.

141

Riesman, D. 8. Rosenborough, H., (1955), “Careers and Consumer Behavior,”
Consumer Behavior, ed. L. H. Clark, New York: New York, University Press,
1-20.

 

Robertsons, Food Packaging: Principles and Practice
http:l/books.gooqle.com/books?hl=en8.lr=8.id=NFRR6GayR74C8oi=fnd8ng
PA18.dg=four+functions+of+packgging8ots=OkagoXSlU85ig=KqLEQQVyvcl
iHBGSOCaeSgRlcFl

 

Saint Gobain Container (2002), “Stock Containers, 12.75 FL 02 bottle
description, “ Saint Gobain Website, Accessed April 14‘“, 2007:
httpzllwwwsgcontainers.com/bf/stckweb.nsf/ac4ce80bd1638d61 05256d4100
5e4ef8/629052b6574aaa2d05256b89005b87c4?OpenDocument8.Highli_qht=0
43560128

 

 

Schewe, C., 8. Meredith, G., (2004) “Segmenting global markets by
generational cohorts: Determining motivations by age”, Journal of Consumer
Behavior, 4(1), 51.

Schewe, C., Meredith, G., 8. Noble, S. (2000), “Defining moments:
Segmenting by cohort,” Marketing Management, 9(3), 48.

Schnabel, M., (1976), “Defining a product,” The Journal of Business, 49 (4),
517.

Seeram, N., 8. Heber, R., (2004), “Bioavailabilty of ellagic acid in human
plasma after consumption of ellagitannins from pomegranate (Punica
granataum L.) juice,” C/inica Chimica Acta. 63—68.

Silayoi P. 8. Speece, M., (2004), “Packaging and Purchase Decisions,” British
Food Journal. 106 (8/9) 607.

Stokes, R., (1984), “The Effect of Price, Package Design, and Brand Familiarity
on Perceived Quality,” Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores and
Merchandise. D.C. Heath and Company. Massachusetts.

Thompson, S., (1998), “Chug-a-mania,” Brandweek, 39(25) 22.

Thomsbury, S., 8. Woods, M. (2005), “Market Study of the Polish Tart Cherry
Industry, “ Final Report, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan

State Univeristy, Accessed July 30‘“, 2007:
http://www.globalhort.msu.edu/docs/FinalReport websitepdf

Tinney, M., (2005), “3L Boxed Wine Sales Take Off,” Retail Sales Analysis,
12(8).

142

Twede, D. 8. Selke. S., (2005), Cartons, Crates and Corrugated Board:
Handbook of Paper and Wood Packaging Technolcgy. Lancaster, PA:
DesTech Publications.

USDA, NASS., (2005) Michigan Agriculture Statistics 2004-2005. Michigan
department of Agriculture 2004 Annual Report.

US. Census Bureau (2006), “Educational Attainment,” US. Census of 2006,
Accessed July 30‘", 2006:
http://www.censusgqov/Press-

Van Dam, Y., and Van Trijp, Y., (1993), “Consumer perceptions of and
preferences for product packaging,”Proceed/ngs of the Annual Conference-
European Marketing Academy.

Wang, H., Nair, M., Strasburg, G., Chang, Y., Booren, A., Gray, J, 8. DeWitt,
D., (1999), “Antioxidant and Antinflamatory Activities of Anthocyanins and
Their Aglycon, Cyanidin, from Tart Cherries,” Journal of Natural Products,
62(2) 294-296.

Wyer, Robert 8., Jr., and Thomas K. Srull ( 1989), Memory and Cognition in lts
Social Context, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbanm.

 

Zeithaml, V. (1985) “The New Demographics and Market Fragmentation,”
Journal of Marketing, 49,, 64-75.

Zeithaml, V., (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A
Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence, ”Journal of Marketing 52 (3), 2.

143

 

uljllijjjijlljrjj.rjjjjI

 

.--.__ __--._ _ .